Appeal No. 2005-2267 Page 4
Application No. 09/870,899
and pig birth weights … did not differ among treatment groups [including the
control group].” Regarding weaning weight, Fritsche teach, “no diet effect was
noted”. Id. Accordingly, we fail to see how the examiner has reached the
conclusion (Answer, page 4) that Fritsche teaches that the administration of fish
oil compositions comprising C20 and C22 omega-3 fatty acids provide a benefit to
female swine, including, inter alia, pig survival, number of pigs born per sow, birth
weight and weaning weights.
In our opinion, Boudreaux does not make up for the deficiency in Fritsche.
As the examiner points out (Answer, page 14), the teaching of Boudreaux is
limited to “optimizing or determining the ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3
fatty acids” to include in animal feed. Boudreaux, however, fails to make up for
the deficiency in Fritsche relating to a benefit relating to, inter alia, pig survival,
number of pigs born per sow, birth weight and weaning weights.
Prima facie obviousness based on a combination of references requires
that the prior art provide “a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor
to combine those references.” Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may
flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the
problem to be solved. . . . The range of sources available, however,
does not diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That is, the
showing must be clear and particular.
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted). The suggestion to combine prior art references must come
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007