Appeal 2007-2191
Application 10/284,553
5-20% by weight of water. We find that Dempsey mentions that its dog
chew product has 5-30% by weight of protein (claims 6 and 7) and has a
higher degree of firmness or chewiness due to the addition of calcium
carbonate in its product (pp. 5-6). We observe that Dempsey does not
specifically mention retrograding the starches and adding a plasticizer to its
dog chew product.
To remedy these deficiencies, the Examiner has relied on, inter alia,
the disclosures of Cheuk and Wang. We find that Cheuk explains that at
Dempsey’s cooking (gelatinization) temperature and/or extrusion pressure,
Dempsey’s starches would necessarily undergo retrogradation (col. 2, ll. 8-
14 and col. 4, ll. 12-41). We find that Wang teaches that adding up to 20%
by weight of edible plasticizers to a pet chew (inclusive of a dog chew)
having ingredients similar to that of Dempsey is conventional (col. 3, ll. 41-
47 and col. 5, l. 18 to col. 7, l. 65). According to col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 2,
of Wang, “[s]uch plasticizers improve the processing flowability of the [pet
chew ingredients]. Plasticizers also enhance flexibility of articles made from
the [pet chew ingredients].”
Given the above teachings, we determine that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to include the claimed amount of edible
plasticizers, as taught by Wang, in the necessarily retrograded and
gelatinized starch-base dog chew product of the type discussed in Dempsey,
with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the advantages
taught by Wang.
With respect to packaging the dog chew product to further retrograde
the starch product therein, we do not find that this process limitation further
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013