Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 with the statement that “Thus, the rejection is maintained and is proper”
2 (Final Action, April 21, 2005, p. 4, last line).
3 The text of the rejection as it stood is found in the Office Action dated
4 December 6, 2004 and the Examiner’s Answer.
5 In that rejection, the Examiner found pericarp from a fruit of Garcinia
6 mangostana L. (mangosteen) was known as well as the juice of mangosteen
7 and another juice. The Examiner specifically found that (1) Yaacob teaches
8 the use of mangosteen pericarp for various medicinal uses and that the fruit
9 was known to be preserved as a drink; (2) Kirtikar and Caius teach the
10 pericarp is used as an astringent; (3) JP ‘442 teaches combining the
11 mangosteen rind with fruits of other plants; (4) JP ‘501 teaches that pericarp
12 from mangosteen is used to treat various conditions; and (5) Duke teaches
13 mangosteen rind (pericarp) is known to be used as an astringent for various
14 ailments. (Office Action, December 6, 2004, pp. 2-3).
15 The Examiner then concluded it would have been obvious to one of
16 ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the
17 two or more ingredients which were known in the prior art to be useful for
18 the same purposes. (Id. p. 3).
19 The Appellant, on the other hand, urges that the quotation from the
20 Final Action is no more than conclusory statements and not evidence of
21 motivation or suggestion. (Br. p. 18, ll. 1-2).
22 We find that this argument ignores that the body of the rejection is
23 found elsewhere in the application prosecution history. This argument has
24 not challenged the substance of the findings and conclusion of the Examiner.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013