Ex parte CHAYKIN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 1998

08062494 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 13, 1993. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application No. 07/984,285, filed December 1, 1992; which is a
continuation of Application No. 07/865,810, filed April 7,
1992; which is a con-tinuation of Application No. 07/574,653,
filed August 29, 1990; all abandoned.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 42
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte STERLING CHAYKIN
________________
Appeal No. 95-4689
Application No. 08/062,4941
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before WINTERS and WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges, and McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
WINTERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-4689
Application No. 08/062,494
-2-
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal was taken from the examiner's decision
finally rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 22, which
are all of the claims remaining in the application.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, reads as follows:
1. A method for reducing or eliminating a malodorous effect
on breath from eating a vegetable selected from the group
consisting of garlic, onion, and radish, said method
comprising the steps of eating at least one of said vegetables
and ingesting active dry yeast, wherein said ingested active
yeast has been selected for survival under acidic conditions
or has been enteric coated and said ingested active yeast is
in an effective dosage to signifi-cantly reduce or eliminate
said malodorous effect.
In rejecting the appealed claims, the examiner does not
rely on any prior art references.
The issue presented for review is whether the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling
disclosure.
On consideration of the record, including appellant's
Revised Brief on Appeal (Paper No. 36) and the Examiner's
Appeal No. 95-4689
Application No. 08/062,494
-3-
Answer (Paper No. 37), it is ORDERED that this rejection is
reversed.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
WILLIAM F. SMITH ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
FRED E. McKELVEY )
Senior, Administrative Patent Judge )
clm
Appeal No. 95-4689
Application No. 08/062,494
-4-
Richard A. Osman, Ph.D.
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP
268 Bush St., Ste. 3200
San Francisco, CA 94104