Ex Parte Fung et al - Page 8

               Appeal 2007-2028                                                                             
               Application 11/058,147                                                                       

               a size range that overlaps with the claimed range.  We therefore agree with                  
               the Examiner that Benjamin suggests the claimed size range.                                  
                      To summarize, because Benjamin suggests a composition having the                      
               claimed particles in the claimed particle size range, we agree with the                      
               Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have considered claim 1 obvious                    
               over Benjamin.  We therefore affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection                     
               of claim 1 over Benjamin.  “[C]laims 2-18 stand or fall with claim 1” (Br.                   
               10).3  We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-6, 14, 17, and 18.                      
               4.  OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 7-9, 11-13, 19, and 20                                             
                      Claims 7-9, 11-13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                 
               obvious over Benjamin and Cowan (Answer 3).  The Examiner reasons that                       
               “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the                 
               time the invention was made to employ a colorant agent as taught by Cowan                    
               et al. in the litter of Benjamin et al. in order to enhance the appearance of the            
               litter composition” (Final Rejection 4).  The Examiner urges that the amount                 
               of coloring agent recited in the claims would have been obvious “since it has                
               been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are                 
               present, discovering the optimum or workable value/ranges until the desired                  
               effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art” (id.).                            
                      Appellants argue that claim 19 is distinguishable over Benjamin and                   
               Cowan because “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to                    
                                                                                                           
               3 The Reply Brief provides a separate heading and argument for every                         
               appealed claim (Reply Br. 10-22), but Appellants’ failure to argue the claims                
               separately in the Appeal Brief “constitute[s] a waiver of any argument that                  
               the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.”                  
               37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).                                                                
                                                     8                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013