The claims for example 30 from the May USPTO life science examples re below. By way of background, the “Texas mint” plant as a thin liquid sap containing about 10% texiol, water and other nutrients. Texiol is lower in calories and tastes sweeter than table sugar, but it has a bitter aftertaste. Applicant discloses that trained sensory panels reviewed the formulations having varying concentrations of texiol in water, and preferred dietary sweetener comprising 1-5% texiol and at least 90% water. Applicant also discloses a dietary sweetener comprising texiol mixed with water and Compound N which is a natural flavor exccreted from mushrooms and having a mild umami taste. When combined with texiol in particular amounts, compound N neutralizes the bitter aftertaste of texiol, even though it does not chemically react with texiol. The sensory panel found that a formulation having 1-5% texiol, 1-2% compound N and the balance water produced the best results with no bitter aftertaste. Applicant also found that upon tasting naturally occurring texiol, the sensory panel reported perceiving an immediate bust of sweetness that rapidly dissipated. Because prolonged sweetining is desireable, applicant discloses dietary sweeteners haivng texiol in a controlled release formulation.
2. A dietary sweetener comprising:
1-5 percent texiol; and at least 90 percent water.
3. A dietary sweetener comprising:
1-5 percent texiol; and at least 90 percent water; and 1-2 percent Compound N.
6. A dietary sweetner comprising:
texiol in a controlled release formulation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 does not encompass the naturally occurring sap of the Texas mint plant, which contains a different amount of texiol (10%). But the claim falls within the natural product exeption because texiol and water are composed of matter and thus the claim is drawn to a composition of matter and although the combination as claimed is novel and does not occur in nature, there is no indication that mixxing 1-5 percent texiol with at least 90% water changes the structure, funciton, or other properties of the texiol or water in any marked way. The claim also does not add significantly more than the exeption, either individually or as a combination in that each component continues to ahve the same properties in the mixture as it had alone and mixing sweeters with water was well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the filed prior to applicant’s invention.
Claim 3 is still drawn to a composition of matter. But when the claimed mixture is compared to its counterparts in nature, the mixure has a changed property of taste. It is thus not a “product of nature” exception.
Claim 6 is still drawn to a composition of matter. However, the claimed formulation which is compared to its counterpart (naturally occurring texiol in its natural state) has altered time release properties which constitute marked difference in characteristics. It is thus not a “product of nature” exception.