Appeal No. 2006-1878 Page 6
Application No. 10/435,367
horses at page 24. Also, the Examiner provides the Howes reference as a teaching for
Mycosorb.” Office action dated May 6, 2004, page 3. See also Answer, pages 8-9.
Appellants argued that the combination is improper because “the cited
references are completely unrelated and provide neither any teaching or suggestion . . .
which could justify the combination.” (Underlining removed.) Brief, at page 22.
Appellants also argued that McKeown teaches a feed supplement to treat ketosis (id.,
page 25); Howes teaches a composition that is “mixed with animals feeds to bind
mycotoxins” (id.); and the skilled artisan would not have be motivated to add Howes
supplement to McKeown because “the elimination of mycotoxins is not relevant to a
supplement used to treat ketosis in cattle during parturition.” Id., page 26. Appellants
also argued that McKeown does not show “a soluble fiber nor any other ingredient
which could slow the passage of foodstuffs through the stomach.” Id., page 28.
Claim 1 requires three components: a polar lipid to strengthen the gut
membrane, a soluble fiber to slow food passage, and a nutricine which increases the
integrity of digestive tract membranes. The Examiner stated that all three elements
could be found in McKeown. For this reason, we first look to its disclosure.
McKeown describes a food supplement which contains a gluconeogenic
compound and a fatty acid. McKeown, Abstract; column 5, lines 18-21. Glutamine is
listed as a suitable gluconeogenic compound in the feed supplement. Id., column 5,
lines 26-33. As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 8, line 10), glutamine is
also described in the Appellants’ application as a nutricine which “increases the integrity
of digestive tract membranes.” See Specification, ¶ 32. Thus, we are in agreement
with the Examiner that this disclosure meets the recited limitation in the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007