Appeal No. 2006-2575
Application No. 10/025,567
claim 5 is unpatentable over the cited references, regardless of whether the
references would have suggested the Listeria, Salmonella, or Campylobacter
embodiments of the claim.
In response to this rejection, Appellants reiterate their previous
arguments regarding Tokoro, Kaspers, and Pimentel. (Br. 28.) These
arguments are addressed above. Appellants also argue that Stolle, Sugita-
Konishi, and Yokoyama do not disclose binding IgY, IgM, and IgA with
protein-wasting organisms in the digestive tract or that the binding of IgY to
organisms is assisted by IgM and IgA. (Id. at 29-30.) Appellants further
argue that the objective evidence of record does not provide a clear and
particular showing sufficient to motivate one of skill to combine the
references. (Id. at 30.)
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Again, Tokoro discloses,
expressly or inherently, a method encompassed by claim 5. Therefore, the
teachings of Stolle, Sugita-Konishi, and Yokoyama, as well as the
combinability of those references, are all irrelevant to the patentability of
claim 5.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 over Tokoro,
Kaspers, Pimentel, Stolle, Sugita-Konishi, and Yokoyama.
8. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 6, 7, 12, 22, AND 23
Claim 6, 7, 12, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Tokoro, Kaspers, Pimentel, Stolle, Sugita-Konishi,
Yokoyama, Adalsteinsson, and Betz. (Answer 16.)
As discussed supra, Tokoro teaches preparing dried whole avian egg
compositions containing antibodies to pathogenic digestive tract
26
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013