Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 Claims 2-5, 9-14, 21-22, 45-48, 50, 63-66, and 78-81 recite known
2 juices such as fruit juices, vegetable juices, or concentrates thereof. The
3 Appellant has not explained why each of which would not have been
4 obvious to use by one of ordinary skill in the art to be used in a beverage.
5 Claims 29-43 have been withdrawn from appeal and as such the
6 rejection is summarily affirmed.
7 Claims 6-8 recite known methods of preparing ingredients (whole
8 fruit, ground, or powdered). The Appellant has not put forth any meaningful
9 argument as to why each would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
10 skill in the art.
11 Claims 15-17 recite percentages by weight of fruit juice and pericarp;
12 claims 18-20 recite ratios of water to pericarp and juice; claims 23-25 recite
13 ratios of pericarp and first juice to the total weight; claims 26-28 recite ratios
14 of water to pericarp, first juice, and second juice; claims 51-53 recite a
15 percentage by weight of fruit pulp and pericarp; claims 54-56 recite a ratio
16 of water to fruit pulp, pericarp, and juice concentrate; claims 67-69 recite a
17 percentage by weight of ground fruit pulp and pericarp; claims 70-72 recite a
18 ratio of water to the remaining ingredients; and claims 75-77 recite a ratio of
19 water to liquid pericarp.
20 The Appellants have not put forth any meaningful argument as to why
21 these claims would not have been obvious.
22 Claim 49 recites flash pasteurizing the mixture of pericarp and juices.
23 The Appellants have not put forth any meaningful argument as to why this
24 claim would not have been obvious.
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013