Appeal No. 2006-2463
Application No. 10/065,326
"BBB", "GGG" and "HHH".
In addition, the examiner should carefully interpret the claims to determine
whether the claim scope is broad enough to encompass administering an animal food
which is not dry but includes a dry component powder of DHA or EPA.
3. The examiner should further consider the relevance of U.S. Patent
Publication US2003/0194478 A1 to Davenport et al. to the pending claims. This is a
publication of an application filed April 12, 2002, which is prior to the October 3, 2002
filing date of the present application. This Davenport publication describes the
administration of combinations of DHA and EPA to animals to influence various animal
behaviors. Claim 1 describes administration of a total amount of EPA and DHA of
greater than about 0.20 weight percent. The examiner should consider the relevance
of this publication, discussing each claim individually.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we vacate the rejections and remand the application to the examiner
for further consideration. Upon receipt of the administrative file, we encourage the
examiner to take a step back and reconsider the claim scope together with any relevant
prior art. The art may be applied alone or in combination. If, after having the
opportunity to reconsider the record, the examiner finds that a rejection is necessary,
the examiner should clearly articulate the basis for any ground of rejection on the record
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007