Appeal No. 2006-0201 Page 4
Application No. 10/125,272
include water-soluble inorganic salts, “hydrophobic, gel-forming or slowly dissolving
compounds,” and trehalose. Page 6, lines 3-27.
Thus, the process of claim 1 requires mixing water, an enzyme (e.g., a
phosphatase or a protease), a “powder which can be compacted into a granule,” and an
additive; mechanically processing the mixture to obtain granules; drying the granules
and coating them with PEG having a molecular weight of 6000 to 20,000 Daltons.
Claim 1 also states that the resulting granules have “a dissolution time shorter than [that
of] granules coated with oil or fat, and . . . a pelleting stability greater than uncoated
granules.”
2. Anticipation
The examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 31, and 34-36
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by De Lima,1 reasoning that
[t]he patent teaches making an enzyme containing granulate suitable for
use in animal feed. The patent teaches mixing a feed enzyme, a solid
carrier, water and at least one additive. The patent then mechanically
processes the mixture to form the granules, dries them and then coats the
granulates with polyethylene glycol (PEG).
Examiner’s Answer, page 5.
Appellants argue that the reference does not identically disclose the claimed
process because, among other things, “whereas De[ ]Lima begins with a granular core
particle, Appellants’ invention begins with a mixture that is processed into a granule.”
Appeal Brief, page 11. Appellants reason that “[t]he core in De[ ]Lima differs from the
solid carrier in Appellants’ claim 1. . . . De[ ]Lima teaches that its carrier particles
1 De Lima et al., U.S. Patent 6,136,772, issued October 24, 2000.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007