Appeal No. 95-2441
Application 07/987,211
one hydrophilic material and the coated particles in
turn are overcoated with a minor amount of a surfactant,
optionally together with flavoring agents.
At first glance, the compositions appellant claims and G-S
describes reasonably appear to be the same. Appellant and G-S
both overcoat a bioactive core substance encapsulated by a
hydrophobic material with a surfactant. The examiner supports
his finding that G-S anticipates the subject matter appellant
claims by concluding that the functional language, “suitable
for introduction of the bioactive substance to the post-rumen
portion of the digestive system of a ruminant substantially
without introducing said substance to the rumen portion of the
digestive system,” in appellant’s claims, does not limit the
bioactive substance of the claimed composition to one which is
useful exclusively in ruminants (Ans., p. 6). According to
the examiner, G-S describes the composition of encapsulated
bioactive substance that appellant claims regardless of its
intended use for treating humans and appellant’s intended use
for treating ruminants (Examiner’s Answer (ANS.), p. 6). The
evidence of record does not enable us to find, as the examiner
apparently did, that persons having ordinary skill in the art
would
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007