Appeal 2006-2327
Application 10/239,287
will stand or fall together as a group. We will focus on independent claims 1
and 21 as representative of the rejected claims.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, each of these
rejections will be sustained.
It is the Examiner’s basic position that it would have been obvious for
one with ordinary skill in the art to provide the coating of the pet food taught
by each of the primary references with both a sugar and an acid in order to
enhance palatability in view of the teachings by Mohrman and Kealy
concerning acid and the teaching by Fritsch concerning sugar as flavor or
palatability enhancing ingredients. It is also the Examiner’s position that the
pet food resulting from this provision would possess a browned or seared
appearance, particularly since the primary references cook their pet foods
with the same techniques (e.g., a frying technique; see ll. 56-65 in col. 3 of
Brescia) as used by Appellants to achieve a browned or seared appearance
(e.g., see the seventh paragraph on page 2 of the subject Specification).
The Appellants argue that the applied references contain no teaching
or suggestion which would have motivated an artisan to provide the pet food
coatings of the primary references with both a sugar and an acid. In this
regard, it is the Appellants’ view that the prior art teachings of sugar and
acid individually as palatability enhancers would not have suggested their
combination as palatability enhancers. We cannot agree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007