Appeal 2007-2191
Application 10/284,553
distinguishes the claimed dog chew over the dog chew suggested by
Dampsey (as explained by Cheuk) and Wang. As is readily apparent from
the language of claim 29, its process limitation promotes retrogradation of
the starches, but does not exclude the extent of retrogradation of the starches
obtained in Dampsey.
Even if we were to interpret the claims as requiring more
retrogradation than that obtained by Dempsey, our conclusion would not be
altered. We find that Axelrod teaches the advantage of packaging a dog
chew, such as Dempsey’s dog chew containing a desired amount of
moisture, in a moisture barrier package (col. 2, l. 66 to col. 3, l. 6). Given
this advantage, we concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to package the dog chew suggested by Dempsey (as
explained by Cheuk) and Wang in the manner claimed, with a reasonable
expectation of successfully obtaining the advantage taught by Axelrod.
With respect to claim 30, we concur with the Examiner that Wang at
col. 4, ll. 25-58, teaches and/or impliedly suggests that the claimed sizes and
chewing times (dependent on the tensile strength and the percent elongation)
are well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that Dempsey (as explained by
Cheuk) and Wang would have rendered the subject matter of the claims on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the factual findings set forth in the Answer and
above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013