Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 Rather, the closest prior art to the invention as claimed has already
2 recognized that the mangosteen rind has medicinal benefits and should be
3 included in a beverage with other juices for those medicinal benefits and
4 improved taste. (E.g. JP 442, Example 6). Indeed, the prior art has
5 recognized that the taste can be improved with water and orange juice. The
6 addition of mangosteen juice to the rind/juice known drink is taught by the
7 known desirability of the mangosteen fruit - the “Queen of Fruits” with a
8 great taste.
9 Finally, the multiple references teaching medicinal properties of the
10 mangosteen rind would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to include it
11 in the claimed composition - Duke, JP ‘442, JP ‘501, Yaacob, Caius,
12 Kirtiker, and others each teach at least one medicinal use for ingesting the
13 rind or an extract of the rind of the mangosteen fruit. What teaching there
14 may have been in the references regarding the bitter taste of the rind is more
15 than overcome by the teaching of benefits to be gained by the addition of the
16 rind to a drink. Furthermore, the argument lacks persuasive merit as the
17 closest prior art already has the rind in the beverage
18 Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by this contention.
19 “Official Notice”
20 The Appellant has urged that the Examiner has not cited to any
21 documentary evidence of motivation or a suggestion to combine, either in
22 the prior art or the general knowledge in the art. (Br. p. 19, last 2 lines). As
23 such, it is alleged that the Examiner must be taking “[o]fficial notice” of
24 those facts. (Br. p. 20, ll. 1-2). This argument is without persuasive merit.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013