Appeal 2007-2028
Application 11/058,147
In the instant case Benjamin discloses a “flexible absorbent pad useful
as a liner in animal litter boxes” (Benjamin, col. 1, ll. 61-62). Benjamin
discloses that the pad comprises “a mixture of hydrophilic fibers and
discrete particles of a water-insoluble hydrogel . . . such as silica gels” (id.
at col. 5, ll. 11-30, emphasis added). Regarding the size of the particles to
be used in the flexible absorbent pad, Benjamin discloses that “[p]referred
for use herein are particles having an (weight) average particle size of from
about 50 microns to about 1 mm (id. at col. 5, l. 64, through col. 6, l. 8).
Thus, the range of particle sizes preferred in Benjamin’s flexible
absorbent structure overlaps with the size ranges recited in the rejected
claims. We therefore agree with the Examiner that the claims recite a size
range that would have been prima facie obvious in light of Benjamin.
Appellants argue that the particles discussed by Benjamin at column
5, lines 25-30, and column 6, lines 5-8, are not components of a particulate
litter composition, but are instead ingredients in an absorbent structure
comprised of hydrophilic fibers and discrete silica gel particles (Br. 11-12;2
Reply Br. 11-14). Appellants argue that the flexible absorbent structure is
distinguishable from litter because Benjamin discloses that it can be cut into
pads, or used as a liner at the bottom of a litter box and covered with litter
(Br. 12).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. It is well settled that
“claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification and that claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
2 Appeal Brief filed July 26, 2006.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013