Appeal No. 2005-1738 Page 8
Application No. 10/046,897
The examiner states that “[Barney] does not specifically teach using the hops
extract to sanitize the teats and udders of cows.” Id. The examiner relies on
Shibata for teaching that S. aureus is the causative agent of bovine mastitis. See
id.
The rejection concludes:
Therefore, since the hops extract of [Barney] is taught to be
topically active against S. aureus, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably expect that the hops acids of [Barney] would
be useful in sanitizing the teats and udders of cows. Thus, based
on the teachings of the references, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would be motivated to use the hops extract of [Barney] to
sanitize the teats and udders of cows.
[Barney] and [Shibata] taken together teach using a topical
composition to sanitize the teats and udders of cows. The
references do not specifically teach washing or dipping the teats
and udders to apply the compositions. However, applying the
active solution to the infected site would clearly involve washing or
dipping as an obvious means for applying a transdermally active
substance.
Id. at 5-6.
Appellant argues again that Barney and Shibata are non-analogous art, as
Barney relates to the use of hops acids in dentrifices, and thus “one seeking to
treat cattle would not look to the dentrifice art, except by pure hindsight.” Appeal
Brief, page 7. We agree yet again for the reasons set forth with respect to the
rejection over the combination of Owades and Shibata, and the rejection is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007