Appeal No. 94-2861
Application 08/013,537
claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 16-20. However, the examiner’s rejection
of claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 is reversed.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, with
which claims 2, 5-13 and 16-20 stand or fall. Appellants’
specification acknowledges that it was known in the art for feed
manufacturers to solve the product odor problems by
deodorization. Appellants’ counsel at oral hearing also conceded
that Furia evidences that it was known in the art to use
compounds encompassed by the claimed alkyl esters of undecylenic
acid as additives to foods, such as beverages, candy and baked
goods, to impart a wine-like odor. Accordingly, since it was
known in the art to add aromatic compounds to animal foodstuff
for deodorization, we agree with the examiner that it would have
been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate known aromatic compounds, such as the claimed alkyl
esters of undecylenic acid, in an animal foodstuff as the
deodorizing agent.
Appellants rely upon a Rule 1.132 Declaration as evidence of
nonobviousness. According to appellants,
the declarants compared the deodorizing efficacy of
three undecylenic acid esters of the present invention
to equivalent esters of different carboxylic acids,
specifically lauric, capric and caprylic, as well as to
undecylenic acid per se. In all instances, the subject
compounds provided for demonstrably better deodorizing
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007