Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to produce the composition
recited in claim 5.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 5 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Claims 1 and 3
fall with claim 5 because Appellants do not argue them separately. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 over Tokoro, Kaspers,
Pimentel, and Krause.
Claims 13, 16, and 19 stand on a different footing, however.
As discussed supra, claims 13, 16, and 19 recite dried avian egg
compositions containing antibodies to P antigen from P. anaerobius,
CS antigen from C. sticklandii, or CA antigen from C. aminophilum. As
also discussed supra, P, CS, and CA antigens are bacterial antigens which
can be separated from whole cells in culture by centrifugation.
We agree with the Examiner that, because Krause identifies
P. anaerobius, C. sticklandii and C. aminophilum as causing the waste of
dietary protein in food animals, the reference suggests inoculating birds with
cells of these organisms, so as to produce antibodies to the organisms in the
birds’ eggs. However, we do not see, and the Examiner does not point to,
any evidence suggesting that immunizing birds with whole cells of
P. anaerobius, C. sticklandii, or C. aminophilum would yield antibody to P,
CS, or CA antigen, specifically. That is, the Examiner has not pointed to
any evidence showing that immunizing birds with cells of the organisms
would necessarily result in the production of eggs having antibodies to P,
CS, or CA antigen, as required in claims 13, 16, and 19.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013