Appeal 2006-1749
Application 10/300,205
be produced from citrus pulp or grain (Goss, col. 2, ll. 63-64). The
polysaccharide adhesive may be a starch (Goss, col. 3, ll. 8).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each
of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order
to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.
In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (C.C.P.A.
1980).
Applying the Kerkhoven holding to the facts of the present appeal we
find the following: (1) both Kent and Goss disclose animal litter
compositions having sorbent material (i.e., grain material such as grain germ
in Kent and cellulosic granule such as grain or citrus pulp in Goss); (2) each
composition of Kent and Goss is used for the same purpose, namely,
absorbing animal waste; and (3) the combination of Goss with Kent would
produce a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (i.e.,
absorbing animal waste). From the foregoing, it appears that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to have combined Goss’
citrus pulp-based cellulosic granule animal litter with Kent’s grain-based
animal litter. As the Kerkhoven court explained “the idea of combining
them [i.e., the two compositions] flows logically from their having been
individually taught in the prior art.” Id.
Appellants argue that Goss teaches away from combining his citrus
pulp-based sorbent with Kent’s animal litter. Appellants indicate that Goss’
disclosure (i.e., of fibril formation on the cellulosic granules leading to non-
clumping behavior in the cellulosic granules) teaches away from combining
his citrus pulp-based sorbent with Kent’s grain germ sorbent (Reply Br. 3).
We do not agree.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007