Appeal No. 2005-1949
Application No. 09/829,168
The appellant urges that the examiner has not provided a
rationale for combining Meyer and Gil, nor constructed an
argument based on the combination (Appeal Brief, page 9, lines
17-20). We disagree. First, when the references are all in the
same or analogous fields, knowledge thereof by the hypothetical
person of ordinary skill is presumed, In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 994, 217 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In the present
instance, all the cited references are in the field of milk
replacers. Perusal of the references indicates that they are in
the same type of field and would commend themselves to the
attention of one of ordinary skill in the art. The appellant has
put forth no reasons why this would not be so or the combination
is improper.
Rather, the appellant urges that Gil relates to fat mixtures
for human nutrition and there is no “disclosure, connection, or
even suggestion” in Gil to substitute any of the fat mixtures
into an artificial canine milk substitute or modify the casein
and whey ratios. (Appeal Brief, page 10, lines 1-2).
First, Gil is relied upon for a teaching of fat substitutes,
not the casein and whey ratios. Second, the appellant’s argument
assumes that one of ordinary skill has no skill. We do not
presume the artisan to be lacking any basic skills. See In re
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007