Ex Parte Ernst et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2006-2115                                                                             
                Application 09/862,077                                                                       

                pre-mix and at least 0.3% by weight conjugated linoleic acid and a coating                   
                of at least 2% by weight animal tallow.                                                      
                      The references relied on by the Examiner are:                                          
                Franzen    US 4,282,254           Aug. 4, 1981                                               
                Wheeler    US 5,662,953           Sep.  2, 1997                                              
                Lowe     GB 2 355 382 A          Apr. 25, 2001                                               
                      (Published United Kingdom Patent Application)                                          
                      The Examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9,                    
                11 through 16, and 19 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                           
                unpatentable over Lowe in view of Franzen and Wheeler (Answer 3-5).                          
                      Appellants separately argue independent claims 1, 8, 14 and 19 as                      
                representative of the appealed claims (Br. 9, 11, and 14).  Thus, we decide                  
                this appeal based on claims 1, 8, 14 and 19.  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)                   
                (2005).                                                                                      
                      We affirm.                                                                             
                      We refer to the Answer and to the Brief and Reply Brief for a                          
                complete exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and                            
                Appellants.                                                                                  
                                                 OPINION                                                     
                      We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based                         
                thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported position advanced by                  
                the Examiner that prima facie the claimed methods and products                               
                encompassed by claims 1, 8, 14 and 19 would have been obvious over the                       
                combined teachings of Lowe, Franzen and Wheeler to one of ordinary skill                     
                in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.  Accordingly, we                     
                again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based                   

                                                     3                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007