Appeal 2007-2814
Application 10/215,174
Examiner also finds that it would have been obvious for Raymond’s binding
agent to comprise “about 0.01%-40% of the litter composition, since it has
been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are
present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect
(depending on how potent one wishes the composition to be) is achieved
involves only routine skill in the art” (Final Rejection 2-3).
Appellants argue that “Raymond does not disclose a substantially
particulate silica gel material having a binding agent adhered to the silica gel
material with a substantially water soluble fixing agent” (Br. 16 (emphasis
omitted)). In particular, Appellants argue that “[w]hen read in context . . .
[Raymond] does not disclose the use of starch as a fixing agent to adhere a
binding agent onto the silica gel material” (Br. 15-16, citing Raymond,
col. 19, ll. 29-33).
Specifically, Appellants state that Raymond “discloses guar gum
added to a clay and silica gel litter composition as a dry powder, i.e., through
simple addition” (Reply Br. 6). Appellants argue that “the claim limitation
that the binding agent be adhered to said silica gel material with a
substantially water soluble fixing agent . . . is not an inherent feature of
merely combining silica gel and a binding agent (e.g., guar gum)” (id. at 7).
Appellants also argue that “dry blending a starch encapsulated fragrance
powder, a guar gum binding agent, and a particulate silica gel material
would not inherently produce the litter composition claimed by Appellants”
(id. at 8-9).
We reverse the rejection. Raymond describes “an animal litter
composition comprising a mixture of an absorbent material and silica gel,”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013