Appeal No. 1996-2470
Application 08/192,488
(col. 1, lines 13-14; col. 4, lines 47-63).
The examiner argues that “the capability of
denitrification is deemed to be obvious to the
Propionibacterium” (answer, page 4). The examiner, however,
provides no supporting evidence, and does not point out where
the Ayres references teach or would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, that the Propionibacterium
acidipropionici specie is useful in the disclosed methods.
Also, the examiner does not explain why the references would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
adding the microorganisms to ruminant feed, particularly feed
for ruminants intoxicated by nitrates.
The examiner points out (answer, page 4) that Kemp
discloses nitrate poisoning of cattle fed high nitrate diets.
The examiner, however, does not explain why this reference
discloses or would have fairly suggested appellants’ claimed
composition or method to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner argues that selecting appellants’ strain and
concentration is no more than a matter of choice and is well
within the skill of the art (answer, page 4). For a prima
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007