Appeal 2007-2375
Application 10/319,843
teachings in Binder, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to include a maximum of 5% by weight fats and oils in the granular
feed additive of Mori.
Appellants argue that Mori “describes feeds that have been treated
with additives . . . [that] are all different from the ones recited in
Appellant[s’] claims and . . . applied to preparations for a different purpose,
i.e., the prevention of caking not the prevention of dust formation” (Br. 7).
Appellants also argue that Mori does not describe that “the additives are
applied to the surface of compositions” (id.). In particular, Appellants argue
that the “additives that are discussed in [Mori] appear to be blended into
compositions and not just applied to their surface” (Reply Br. 1). In
addition, Appellants argue that the “caking preventative . . . appears to be
made up of solid particles. This may be contrasted with [Appellants’]
additives that are sp[r]ayed on the surface and which are therefore liquids.”
(Id. at 2.) Appellants also argue that “there are no teachings in [Mori] to
suggest that compositions with a fat and oil content of less than 6% should
receive 0.02-2% of additive and, in fact, the entire concept of basing additive
concentration on fat and oil content is absent” (Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. The Examiner is not
relying on Mori to describe the surface additive of claim 34, the amount of
this surface additive, or the amount of fat and oil. Instead, the Examiner is
relying on Beirne and Binder for these features. “Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The
reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013