Appeal No. 95-0715
Application 07/936,942
and/or medicinal content of the granules were also within the
ordinary skill in this art.
Furthermore, we cannot agree with appellant (brief, e.g.,
page 4) that Autant would not have reasonably suggested at
col. 56, lines 7-10, thereof (see supra p. 5) to size the feed
supplement granule to the particle size of the feed for the
intended animal especially in view of the teaching of
Duchstein that it was known in the art that similarity in
particle size between the meal particles and the feed
supplement granules avoided separation. While the main focus
of Autant may have been on the content and preparation of the
particle, that does not detract from the other clear teachings
of the reference. See generally In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649,
651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972). Indeed, contrary to
appellant’s contentions (brief, page 5), we observe that the
coated granules of Autant as well as the perlite granules of
Duchstein clearly satisfy the requirements of the granules in
the appealed claims. It is clear from appellant’s
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in this art that the “granules” are formed in
conventional manner from concentrations of nutrients in
combination with a carrier (e.g., page 2) wherein the carrier
may be “any of a large number of digestible or nondigestible
edible and GRAS (generally recognized as safe) ingredients”
(page 4). Thus, as a matter of claim construction, we are of
the view that the term “granules” as it is used in the
appealed claims must be given its ordinary meaning as we find
no other meaning intended by appellant. See, e.g., York
products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center and
Custom Form Manufacturing, Inc., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73, 40
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007