Appeal 2007-2375
Application 10/319,843
Examiner finds that the “mixing produces a granular feed additive with a
surface being covered with the additional compound ‘like that in a coating’
([Mori,] page 5, line 1)” and that the “particle size and amounts of lysine
additive [in Mori] are the same [as the size and amounts claimed]” (id.).
The Examiner relies on Beirne for teaching “a dust-free powder-like
or granular-like feed additive . . . which contains mineral oil, prepared by
metering the additive and carrier into a mixer . . . and injecting an aerosol of
oil and air so as to spray the mineral oil on the feed, so that the mineral oil
adheres to the dust and a free-flowing formulation is obtained” (id. at 5).
The Examiner finds that Beirne teaches that “dust causes loss of product,
handling difficulties, difficulties in transportation and expensive storage
facilities” (id.). The Examiner concludes that Beirne “provides motivation
to combine the feed granule with oil to reduce dust and render it dust-free”
(id.). The Examiner also finds that Beirne teaches the claimed amount of oil
(id. at 9).
The Examiner relies on Binder for showing “an animal feed
composition containing the fermentation broth or culture medium that
contains fats to the extent of 1.7% and 2.8%” (id. at 6). The Examiner
concludes that it “would have been obvious that the fermentation broth of
[Mori] contains fat to the same extent since the original granulated animal
feed additive shown by Binder et al. contains the same or a similar
fermentation broth” (id.).
We agree that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Mori describes “mixing a granular feed additive containing
from 30 to 90% by weight, on the dry basis, of amino acid(s) with fine
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013