Appeal No. 94-2861
Application 08/013,537
activity than the comparative compounds. [Page 9 of
Brief.]
However, we concur with the examiner that the declaration
evidence is of little probative value since “[n]o explanation has
been given for the selection of the various comparative compounds
and the relevancy thereof” (page 5 of Answer). Appellants have
not established that the comparative compounds are conventional
deodorants for animal feedstock, nor does the declaration
establish that the superiority of appellants’ undecylenic acid
esters vis-à-vis the comparative compounds would be unexpected to
one of ordinary skill in the art. For all we know, one of
ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed compounds to
provide substantially better deodorization of animal feed
compositions than the compounds offered for comparison.
Furthermore, although appellants state at page 3 of the Brief
that “the aromatization of foodstuffs is undesirable because it
causes additional expense to feed manufacturers,” there is no
objective evidence of record which demonstrates that use of the
claimed compounds results in an economic savings as compared with
conventional deodorants.
Moreover, since the claim language “animal foodstuff” is
sufficiently broad to encompass food for humans, as well as human
food that is also consumed by animals, we find that Furia, which
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007