Appeal 2006-2115
Application 09/862,077
on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief. See generally, In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from Lowe and
Franzen2 and conclusions of law based on this evidence (Answer 3-8), to
which we add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Lowe would have disclosed a method of
making a dog food composition by blending conjugated linoleic acid
(“CLA”) with other ingredients “in amounts from 3.5-7g/kg” (Answer 3 and
5-6, citing Lowe at Abstract). The Examiner determines that the addition of
CLA in this manner by Lowe meets the requirement in the claimed methods
to add CLA, including the claimed amount, to the same ingredients, holding
that the claim requirement that CLA is added to inhibit the growth of
Tyrophagus putrescentiae constitutes recognition of an additional beneficial
result for an old process (Answer 3 and 5-6). The Examiner finds that Lowe
coats formed dog food with “duck-based digest” for palatability, rather than
a tallow coating in an amount as claimed, and that Franzen would have
disclosed coating dog food with a coating containing 6% tallow (Answer
4 and 6-7, citing Lowe at Abstract and 3:1-9, and Franzen col. 4, ll. 55-66).
On this basis, the Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to
coat the composition of Lowe with a known tallow coating in place of the
duck digest” (Answer 4 and 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007