Appeal 2006-1749
Application 10/300,205
The Examiner contends that Goss provides the motivation for the
combination with Kent: to enhance clumping and smell of the litter (Answer
4). The Examiner also contends that it is “notoriously well known” in the
animal litter art that the litter “contains some sort of fragrance or odorizer,
such as the citrus residue of Goss et al., to enhance the smell of the litter and
decrease the smell of the animal waste” (Answer 4).
Moreover, the Examiner states that Goss does not disclose citrus
residue as being detrimental to clumping (Answer 5). The Examiner
indicates that Goss teaches forming a “clumpable” litter citing column 1,
line 40 (Answer 5). The Examiner’s position appears to be that if Goss
discloses using citrus residue as the sorbent material for a “clumpable” litter,
then the litter produced using the citrus residue must be “clumpable”
(Answer 5). The Examiner further argues that citrus residue is a well known
fragrance to mask animal waste smell and not to impede clumping (Answer
5). The Examiner concludes that adding citrus residue to Kent’s invention
would not have altered (i.e., detrimentally) Kent’s clumpable litter because
the citrus residue merely functions as “an odor eliminator not a clumping
impeder” (Answer 5).
Appellants respond that Goss does not “teach or suggest that the
citrus-based cellulose can reduce odors of animal waste” (Reply Br. 2).
Appellants argue that Goss uses the citrus residue as only a cellulose source
not as a deodorizer (Reply Br. 2). Also, Appellants state that because Goss’
cellulose is encapsulated in many layers of adhesive it is not clear that the
citrus residue-based cellulosic substrate can perform any odorizing function
(Reply Br. 2-3).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007