Appeal No. 2005-1949
Application No. 09/829,168
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-19 (CCPA 1980); In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hence, we determine that the limited range in Meyer renders
obvious appellant’s recited ratio in claim 1.
As a consequence, we agree with the examiner that (1) the
reference discloses each claim limitation from claims 1 and 9,
and (2) if there is any difference, the difference is minor and
the recited ratio is a) obvious over the range disclosed in Meyer
and b) simple optimization of a result-effective variable.
We therefore affirm this rejection as it relates to
obviousness.
F. The Rejection of Claims 3-5, 11 and 12 Under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a).
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.
Claim 3 reads as follows:
3. The method of claim 1, in which said composition
comprises about 38% protein.
Claim 4 reads as follows:
4. The method of claim 1, in which said composition
comprises about 28% fat.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007