The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CARL SIDONIUS MARIA ANDELA and
AUGUSTINUS BERNARDUS MARIA KLEIN HOLKENBORG
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0201
Application No. 10/125,272
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before MILLS, GRIMES, and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a method of making enzyme-containing granules.
The examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated by or obvious in view of the prior
art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Because the examiner has not
adequately explained how the cited references teach or suggest a process that meets
all the limitations of the present claims, we reverse all of the rejections.
Background
“The use of various enzymes in animal, e.g. livestock, feed has become almost
common practice.” Specification, page 1. “Dry enzyme formulations may be added to
the feed before pelleting and therefore are subjected to heat-inactivation during
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007