Appeal No. 2006-2087
Application No. 10/960,252
Greene, Spanier, Balaz and Wang further in view of “Nutrient
Requirements of Domestic Animals.”
Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as the examiner’s cogent and thorough disposition of
the arguments raised by appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt
the examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Lehn and Denesuk, as set forth by the examiner, disclose
rawhide-based products comprising starch, colors and flavorings
that are formed by injection molding. While the references fail
to teach all the claimed ingredients in the rawhide product, we
concur with the examiner that the additionally cited references
establish the obviousness of incorporating the recited components
in rawhide-based products. For instance, Perlberg teaches the
inclusion of glycerine as a humectant as well as gelatin or any
other binder in a chopped rawhide product, whereas Greene teaches
a rawhide-like product containing casein and plasticizers such as
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007