Ex parte REHBERGER et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1996-2470                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/192,488                                                                                                                                            


                     Ayres et al. (Ayres ‘718)        5,096,718         Mar. 17,                                                                                                       
                     1992                                                                                                                                                              
                     Ott et al. (Ott)                 5,139,777         Aug. 18,                                                                                                       
                     1992                                                                                                                                                              
                     Ayres et al. (Ayres ‘061)        5,260,061         Nov.  9,                                                                                                       
                     1993                                                                                                                                                              
                     Dialog abstract no. 0690163 of A. Kemp et al. (Kemp), “Nitrate                                                                                                    
                     poisoning in cattle. 2. Changes in nitrate in rumen fluid and                                                                                                     
                     methemoglobin formation in blood after high nitrate intake”,                                                                                                      
                     25 Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 51-62 (1977).                                                                                                                             


                                                                            THE REJECTIONS                                                                                             
                                Claims 7-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                                                              
                     unpatentable over Tomes, Ott, Ayres ‘718, Ayres ‘061 and                                                                                                          
                     Kemp.2                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                   OPINION                                                                                             
                                We have carefully considered all of the arguments                                                                                                      
                     advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with                                                                                                            
                     appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well                                                                                                        
                     founded.  Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.                                                                                                               
                                Tomes discloses a method for preserving silage by                                                                                                      


                                2 The examiner’s discussion of the rejection indicates                                                                                                 
                     that the references are applied separately.  There is no                                                                                                          
                     discussion of how any reference is used to remedy a deficiency                                                                                                    
                     in any other reference.                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007