Appeal 2007-2814
Application 10/215,174
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Frazier US 4,085,704 Apr. 25, 1978
Fisher US 4,364,925 Dec. 21, 1982
Benjamin US 4,517,919 May 21, 1985
Stanislowski US 5,018,482 May 28, 1991
Cowan US 5,207,830 May 4, 1993
Ito US 5,526,771 Jun. 18, 1996
Raymond US 6,543,385 B2 Apr. 8, 2003
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 19-21, 23-28, 31-33, and 41-59 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raymond. The Examiner relies on
Raymond for teaching
a particulate litter composition comprising a particulate silica
gel material . . . ; and at least one binding agent ( . . . guar gum)
adhered to said silica gel material with a substantially water
soluble fixing agent ( . . . starch) to form a scoopable litter
composition . . . ; wherein said binding agent facilitates
agglomeration of said silica gel material when wetted such that
the portion of silica gel material that agglomerates is removable
as a clump from the remaining litter composition.
(Final Rejection 2.) In particular, the Examiner finds that Raymond teaches
“a binding agent such as guar gum, which is the same used by Appellants
[and], therefore, inherently achieved the same result, i.e. to bind ingredients
together” (Answer 5). In addition, the Examiner finds that Raymond teaches
that “additives such as starch . . . can be added in their litter composition, . . .
starch [being] claimed by Appellants as a fixing agent,” and that “the starch
of Raymond et al. inherently achieved the same result as Appellant[s’] starch
even though Raymond et al. do not specifically state so” (id.). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013