Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 However, the “teaching away” that the Appellant is asserting is in the
2 specific context of fresh mangosteen fruit and ignores other known methods
3 of preparing the mangosteen fruit, and the known prior art methods of
4 overcoming the bad taste of the rind.
5 Appellants’ alleged teaching aware is nothing more than a recognition
6 that a person desiring solely the “delicious taste” of the mangosteen fruit
7 segments10 would keep the mangosteen’s pericarp portion separate from the
8 fruit segment. Yet, the record demonstrates that a person seeking the alleged
9 medicinal properties of the mangosteen pericarp would seek out the pericarp,
10 even though it is known to have a bitter taste.
11 Indeed, a person seeking the pericarp’s medicinal benefits, but at the
12 same time wishing to avoid its unpleasant taste, would attempt to mask the
13 flavor of the pericarp. As taught by the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the
14 art knows to mask a bitter tasting ingredient through the addition of a juice,
15 especially a fruit juice. As mangosteen juice is known as the “Queen of
16 Fruits” due to its great taste, one skilled in the art would have added the
17 mangotsteen juice to the prior art mangosteen rind/orange juice drink so as
18 to improve the taste of the prior art beverage.
19 However, the issue at hand does not most properly pertain to the
20 eating of fresh mangosteen in the jungles of Thailand or the Philippines.
10 The opening of the cited paragraph of Yaacob reads as follows:
Fresh Fruits
The mangosteen fruit is always best eaten as a fresh fruit. The method
of preparation is to cut carefully ….(Yaacob, p. 14, ll. 4-11). Yaacob’s
teaching, in perspective, is principally to the fresh fruit segments, not
already known prepared drinks.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013