Appeal No. 2006-1878 Page 14
Application No. 10/435,367
teaching that it was known by the skilled worker to add buffers to animal feeds to adjust
their pH to a desired level. In its background section, Sawhill describes the practice of
adding buffers to feed to control the digestive tract’s pH. Sawhill, column 1, line 5-55.
The buffers can be prepared as blocks fed on a “free-choice basis” (column 1,
lines 45-57) or added to the normal dry mix diet (column 1, lines 38-41). In its
examples, Sawhill describes a feed supplement that, in addition to the buffer, contains
molasses, urea, corn gluten, feather meal, and fat. Id., columns 7-10. In this context,
we concur with the Examiner that the skilled worker would have recognized the benefit
of adding buffer to animal feeds or supplements. Appellants’ characterization of Sawhill
as teaching a “lick block for cattle” fails to consider what the reference teaches as a
whole.
Claim 43
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McKeown, Howes, and
Kanter as applied to Claims 3, 5-10, and 46, and further in view of Sawhill.
This is a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). The rejection of
claims 3, 5-10, and 46 is addressed above. Claim 43 contains the further limitation that
a pH balancer is present. For the reasons stated above as applied to claims 37-40 and
59, we find it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have included a pH
balancer to have arrived at the claimed food supplement.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007