Appeal 2006-1749
Application 10/300,205
While Goss discloses fibril formation as being detrimental to
clumping (Goss, col. 4, ll. 40-43), Goss also discloses a solution to the fibril
interaction-non-clumping problem. Goss places a water soluble adhesive on
the cellulosic granules to flatten the fibrils and thereby enhance the clumping
effect (Goss, col. 2, ll. 5-11, 15-21). By using the adhesive coating, Goss
teaches forming a clumpable animal litter (Goss, col. 1, l. 40).
Using Goss’ solution to the fibril problem, the combination of Goss’
citrus pulp-based cellulosic granules with Kent’s animal litter would have
included treating the cellulosic granules to make them clumpable as taught
by Goss.
We also find a reasonable expectation of success in combining Goss’
citrus pulp-based cellulosic granule sorbent with Kent’s grain-germ based
sorbent animal litter. Both Goss and Kent use common sorbents and
adhesives. Kent uses a grain-based sorbent (Kent, col. 3, ll. 17-28) with a
polysaccharide “cohesiveness agent” (Kent, col. 4, ll. 13-14). Goss may use
grain-based sorbents or any of the listed equivalent sorbents such as citrus
pulp (Goss, col. 2, l. 61) with a polysaccharide adhesive (Goss, col. 3, ll. 10-
11). The similarities of Kent’s and Goss’ litter compositions, particularly
the polysaccharides thereof, provide a reasonable expectation that the
combination of the two sorbents would successfully function as a clumpable
animal litter.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to pick citrus pulp as the cellulose
source from Goss’ “long list” of possible cellulose sources. Goss’ list of
possible cellulose sources is not a “long list” as characterized by Appellants.
The list of possible cellulose source includes only approximately sixteen
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007