Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
digestive tract of a food animal. The composition is made by inoculating
chickens with an immunogen from a microorganism that colonizes the
digestive tract of food animals, waiting for the chickens to produce
antibodies to the organism in their eggs, harvesting the eggs, separating the
entire contents of the eggs from the shells, and drying the contents of the
eggs.
Claim 1 also states that the antibody-containing dried egg
composition, “when administered to food animals,” promotes the growth of
the animals by decreasing the waste of protein; that the IgY in the
administered composition binds to the microorganism in the food animal’s
digestive tract; and that the IgM and IgA in the composition assists in the
binding of the IgY to the microorganism.
Claim 1 is directed to a product, not a process. As stated in Texas
Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172,
26 USPQ2d 1018, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1993), “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely
states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the
patentability or substance of the claim.” While the word “whereby” does not
appear in claim 1, the recitations regarding the effect of the composition
“when administered” do not affect the structure, form, or ingredients of the
composition. Therefore, other than confirming the presence of the IgY,
IgM, and IgA antibodies in the composition, we do not interpret claim 1’s
intended result recitations to place any positive limitations on the claim.
The preamble of claim 1 recites that the composition is “for
administration to food animals to inhibit the adherence of a targeted colony-
forming immunogen in the rumen or intestinal tracts of said food animals.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013