Appeal No. 2006-1878 Page 10
Application No. 10/435,367
grains or pelleted concentrates.” Id., column 4, lines 49-52. Howes also does not limit
the feed to a particular animal species or type. “The compositions provided by the
invention can be fed to any animal including, but not limited to, avian, bovine, porcine,
equine, ovine, caprine, canine, and feline species.” Id., column 3, lines 20-22.
A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings
does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art. “[T]he teaching, motivation, or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in
the references. The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings,
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved
as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Answer, page 6,
lines 15-19.
Even were Appellants correct that McKeown’s feed supplement is intended only
for cattle before and after calving (Brief, page 37), we do not find this argument
persuasive. Howes expressly teaches that its supplement can be added to any animal
feed. This would include a feed fed to all cattle, as well as a feed administered to a
more restricted set. The skilled worker reading Howes would have recognized that all
feeds which contain grains are susceptible to mycotoxin contamination, and would have
been motivated to have added Howes’ composition to McKeown’s supplement.
Consistent with this conclusion is Appellants’ own specification, which indicates the
commercial availability of mycotoxin absorbents (¶ 58), and which have apparently been
utilized in the prior art for horse feeds (Briggs, August 2002 cited in Appellants’
Information Disclosure Statement).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007