Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 nutraceutical mangosteen rind/orange juice beverage of the prior art.
2 Mangosteen fruit segments were known for their delicious taste and
3 Appellants’ do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the blending of juices
4 for taste improvement was well known in the art.
5 Additionally, the blending of two known fruit juices to form a
6 beverage juice blend is prima facie obvious. In re Kerkhoven, 626F.2d 846,
7 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (It is prima facie obvious to
8 combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be
9 useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to
10 be used for the very same purpose.).
11 With this prior art background in place, we turn to the specific
12 arguments of the Appellants.
13 Suggestion or Motivation to Combine
14 The Appellants urge that the “Final Office Action” does not rely on
15 the prior art for a suggestion or motivation to combine the elements. (Br. p.
16 17, ll. 1-2). The Appellant urges that the Examiner did not provide
17 particular findings in the prior art that suggest or motivate the actual
18 combination being claimed. (Id., ll. 21-22). The Appellant then quotes a
19 portion of that Final Office Action in support of its argument.
20 This argument is without merit. The portion of the final action of
21 April 21, 2005 quoted by the Appellant did not state the rejection as applied
22 in a previous December 6, 2004 Office Action. The quoted portion
23 addressed and responded to the arguments of counsel made in a March 7,
24 2005 response to the previous December 6, 2004 rejection. It concluded
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013