Appeal No. 2005-2267 Page 6
Application No. 09/870,899
be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having
ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” While this is true,
we fail to see how this supports the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
In our opinion, neither Merck nor Celeritas are relevant to the facts on this record.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-
20, 23, 25, 41 and 71-102 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fritsche in view of Boudreaus.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-20, 23, 25, 41 and 71-102 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abayasekare.
Abayasekare:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 7), Abayasekare teaches
“dietary fatty acid compositions, i.e., fish oil, comprising instant fatty acids such
as omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3, … are useful in increasing … female
performance, i.e., follicular development in the ovary, ovaulation, corpous luteum
function, pregnancy, parturition, and lactation….” The examiner recognizes (id.),
however, that Abayasekare
does not expressly disclose the dietary fatty acid compositions
therein to be administered to female swine, and the particular
amounts (percentage) of fish oil in the composition there[in],
0.025% to 2% by weight, or the particular amounts [of] fish oil such
as salmon oil in the composition therein, and the ratio of omega-6
to omega-3 fatty acids, and the particular time for the administration
such as about 30 days before a first mating through a second
mating, and stabilizing the fish oil by prilling.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007