Appeal 2006-1749
Application 10/300,205
3. Claims 124, 125, 138, 139, 154 and 155 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kent as modified by Goss in
further view of Greenberg.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete
exposition thereof.
OPINION
Appellants do not separately argue the claims in their Brief or Reply
Brief. Rather, Appellants solely argue the product limitations in the claims.
Claim 50, a product claim, appears to be the broadest claim on appeal. The
other independent product, method of making and the method of using
claims contain limitations similar to those in product claim 50. Accordingly,
we choose claim 50 as the representative claim on which to render our
decision.
We also note that Appellants provide no arguments regarding either
the Ducharme or Greenberg patents. Rather, Appellants limit their
arguments to the combination of the Kent patent with the Goss patent. In
response to Appellants' arguments, we limit our discussion below to the
combination of Kent with Goss.
Claim 50 recites an animal litter including “a mixture of at least two
discrete sorbents selected from the group consisting of a plant meal, grain
germ, citrus residue, and mixtures thereof”, “a polysaccharide cohesiveness
agent”, the “animal litter being in the form of discrete plural compacted
particles which tend to agglomerate when wetted”, and the “polysaccharide
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007