Appeal 2006-1749
Application 10/300,205
cohesiveness agent being present in said litter in an amount effective to
enhance the intraparticle cohesion of the particles.”
The Examiner rejected claim 50 under § 103(a) over Kent in view of
Goss (Answer 3). The Examiner stated:
Kent et al. disclose an animal litter comprising a first sorbent being
selected from corn germ (col. 3, lines 17-43); a discrete second
sorbent selected from other grains (col. 3, lines 17-43); a
polysaccharide cohesive agent (col. 4, lines 10-19); said litter being in
the form of discrete plural compacted particles which tend to
agglomerate when wetted , said polysaccharide cohesiveness agent
being present in said litter in an amount effective to enhance
intraparticle cohesion of said particles (Final Office Action 3-4).
The Examiner stated that Kent is silent about a citrus residue as the
second sorbent (Final Office Action 4). However, the Examiner found that
Goss taught an animal litter that includes citrus residue (Final Office Action
4). Based on the disclosure of Kent and Goss, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious “to employ a citrus residue as taught by Goss et
al. as the preferred second sorbent in the litter of Kent et al. in order to
enhance clumping and smell of the litter” (Final Office Action 4).
Appellants argue lack of motivation to combine Goss with Kent (Br.
4-5). In that regard, Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
“would be disinclined to employ the citrus material of Goss in the litter of
Kent, in light of the teachings in Goss that the citrus residue is detrimental to
clumping” (Br. 5). Appellants argue that Goss teaches citrus residue
impedes clumping and also that even adhesively coated citrus residue does
not clump (Br. 5). Appellants conclude that their invention, which achieves
a clumpable litter using citrus residue, is a “surprising departure from the
prior art” (Br. 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007