Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 Thus, the only difference between the single closest piece of prior art
2 of record and instant claim 1 is the addition of juice from fruit of a Garcinia
3 mangostana L. tree into the drink.
4 JP ‘442 also notes that “from the standpoint of ingesta palatability, the
5 addition of 5% or less [of extract] is particularly preferable.” (p. 7, last two
6 lines). One of ordinary skill in the art would also therefore recognize that JP
7 ‘442 teaches that the mangosteen rind had a taste problem which was
8 overcome by the addition of other components. One of ordinary skill in the
9 art would have realized that water and orange juice make up over 84% of the
10 beverage.9 One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that juices can
11 be blended for flavor.
12 Duke describes that Garcinia Mangostana L. is “cultivated for its
13 fruit, which has a flavor suggestive of strawberry and grape; said to be the
14 most delicious of all tropical fruits.” (257:2-3). Yaacob describes
15 mangosteen fruits as “one of the finest flavored fruits in the world,
16 outranking all other tropical fruits; the mangosteen has therefore justly
17 earned the popular title of ‘Queen of Fruits’” (5:19-22).
18 We agree with the Examiner that these references provide ample
19 motivation to combine mangosteen juice, another fruit or vegetable juice,
20 and mangosteen pericarp in a beverage, to cover up the taste of the
21 mangosteen rind.
22 Specifically, the only difference between the prior art of record and
23 the claimed invention is the addition of a mangosteen juice to the
9 54.46% water, 30.0% orange juice. (JP ‘442, 16, ll. 19-28).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013