Ex Parte Fung et al - Page 13

               Appeal 2007-2028                                                                             
               Application 11/058,147                                                                       

                      Appellants do not argue this ground of rejection in the Appeal Brief,                 
               the only reference to claims 15 and 16 being that “claims 2-18 stand or fall                 
               with claim 1” (Br. 10).                                                                      
                      Claims 15 and 16 together require the claimed litter composition to                   
               have an encapsulated fragrance.  Stanislowski discloses that, in animal                      
               litters, “fragrances . . . to mask odors can be used.  The fragrances can be                 
               uncoated . . . or encapsulated” (Stanislowski col. 6, ll. 23-25).  We agree                  
               with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill, recognizing that Benjamin’s                    
               absorbent material was to be used in a litter box, would have also recognized                
               the desirability of including Stanislowski’s odor-masking encapsulated                       
               fragrance in the absorbent material.  We therefore affirm the obviousness                    
               rejection of claims 15 and 16.                                                               
                                               SUMMARY                                                      
                      We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 14, 17, and 18 as                   
               obvious over Benjamin.                                                                       
                      We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-9, 11-13, 19, and 20                   
               as obvious over Benjamin and Cowan.                                                          
                      We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as obvious over                        
               Benjamin, Cowan, and Ito.                                                                    
                      We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16 as obvious                     
               over Benjamin and Stanislowski.                                                              







                                                    13                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013