Appeal 2006-1749
Application 10/300,205
(16) exemplified sources. Regardless, an artisan would have been motivated
to select any member of this list, including citrus pulp, based on Goss’
teaching that the enumerated cellulose sources are suitable adsorbents in
animal litter. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d
804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We affirm all the § 103(a) rejections on appeal.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 16, 33,
50, 59, 69, 113-118, 121-123, 126-132, 135-137, 140-148, 151-153, 156,
157, 159-161, 164-166, 168-170, 173-181 and 184 as being unpatentable
over Kent in view of Goss.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 119, 133, 149, 162,
171 and 182 as being unpatentable over Kent as modified by Goss in further
view of Ducharme.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 124, 125, 138, 139,
154 and 155 as being unpatentable over Kent as modified by Goss in further
view of Greenberg.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007