Appeal 2007-2028
Application 11/058,147
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a dye
as taught by Ito in the litter of Benjamin et al. as modified by Cowan et al. in
order to enhance the appearance of the litter” (Final Rejection 5).
Appellants do not argue this ground of rejection in the Appeal Brief,
the only reference to claim 10 being that “claims 2-18 stand or fall with
claim 1” (Br. 10).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have
considered claim 10 obvious over the cited references. Claim 10 requires
the claimed litter composition to have a colorant agent which may be a
quinoline dye. Ito discloses that animal litter material can be pigmented
with a number of coloring agents, including “quinoline blue . . . [and]
quinoline green” (Ito col. 3, ll. 3-10).
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill, recognizing from Cowan that dyes and pigments are conventionally
used in litter compositions, would have considered it obvious to enhance the
appearance of Benjamin’s particle-containing absorbent pad by applying
dyes or pigments to it, such as the dyes disclosed by Ito. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10.
6. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 15 AND 16
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Benjamin and Stanislowski (Answer 3). The Examiner urges that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to employ an encapsulated fragrance as taught by
Stanislowski et al. in the litter of Benjamin et al. in order to provide the litter
with a pleasant odor” (Final Rejection 5).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013