Appeal No. 2005-1949
Application No. 09/829,168
F) Claims 3-5, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable as obvious over the disclosure of
Meyer.
G) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Meyer as applied in Rejection E, further in
view of Gil.
H) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Meyer as applied in Rejection E, further
in view of Fujimoro.
III. Discussion
A) The Rejection of Claims 1 and 3-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over the Admitted Prior Art from pages 1 and 5
of the grandparent application 09/163,778.
The examiner has found that naturally occurring canine milk
contains all of the elements of instant claim 1. The examiner
therefore concludes that naturally occurring canine milk clearly
anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. (Final Rejection,
October 31, 2003, page 2, lines 24-26). The examiner urges that
there is no patentable distinction between natural beagle milk
and the claimed invention. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, last 3
lines).
Claim 1 recites a method including the administration of an
amount of “an artificially produced canine milk substitute
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007