Appeal 2007-2375
Application 10/319,843
to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581
(1995) (internal quotations omitted).
In addition, Appellants argue that Binder does not “suggest the
addition of any type of additive to the surface of the compositions to prevent
dust formation. In fact, [Binder] do[es] not appear to recognize dust
formation as a problem at all.” (Br. 10.) Appellants also argue that “there is
no suggestion that a composition having a fat and oil content of less than 6%
should have 0.02-2% of oil or PEG added to its surface. Again, a
relationship between the content of fats and oils and the amount of surface
additive is simply not taught.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As pointed out by the
Examiner, “Binder is not the only reference applied in this rejection”
(Answer 10). For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Mori with Beirne and Binder would have suggested
the animal feed composition of claim 34.
SUMMARY
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 34 would have been obvious in view of the applied references, which
Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 35-51 fall with claim 34.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013