Appeal No. 95-0715
Application 07/936,942
customers selected a granule size based on the animal to be
fed and the conventional feed for that animal demonstrates no
more than the ordinary skill in the art as seen from Autant
and Duchstein as we set forth above in considering the merits
of the presently claimed invention. Appellant’s allegation of
long-felt need is clearly without merit as it is based
entirely on speculation and not on any objective evidence in
the record.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new grounds of rejection. Claims 1
through 3, 5, 6 and 21 on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
' 102(b) as being anticipated by, and under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
being obvious over Duchstein. We have set forth the teachings
of this reference above. With respect to appealed claim 1,
the perlite granule of Duchstein is “formed” in conventional
manner, charged with at least 1% by weight of physiological
substances, can have a grain size of 5 mm which is larger than
1/64 inch and is mixed with meal at a size corresponding to
the particle size range of the meal so that it will not
separate from the meal. With respect to appealed claim 2, the
charged perlite granules of Duchstein would have a density
equal to +/- 30% of the density of said feed composition and
with respect to duplicate appealed claims 3 and 21 (see supra
note 3), the charged perlite granules of Duchstein would be
present at least at 10 volume percent of the feed composition
and thus be present at least at .25% by weight. And finally,
with respect to appealed claims 5 and 6, the perlite granules
would possess a nutrient charge that would comprise at least
4% by weight of nutrient ingredients which are trace elements
and/or vitamins.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007