Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201412049821 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/049,821 03/17/2008 Lin Wang 8970-95248-US 7573 74456 7590 10/15/2014 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER HUSON, JOSHUA DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3644 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2014 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LIN WANG, SARJIT JOHAL, and THOMAS A. WIESNER ____________ Appeal 2012-006315 Application 12/049,821 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 12–30 as unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2003/0205204 A1, published Nov. 6, 2003) in view of Otsuji et al. (EP 1 466 522 A2, published Oct. 13, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-006315 Application 12/049,821 2 Appellants claim a liquid absorbent animal litter comprising at least 15% by weight of a copra residue and at least one absorbent (claim 12) as well as a process of preparing such animal litter (claim 19). A copy of representative claim 12, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 12. A liquid absorbent animal litter comprising at least 15% by weight of a copra residue and at least one absorbent selected from the group consisting whole ground grain, spent germ, virgin germ, seed meal, and clay, said animal litter being in the form of discrete plural particles. Appellants present arguments specifically directed to only independent claim 12 and dependent claim 14 (App. Br. 4–9). The remaining claims will stand or fall with representative claim 12. We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. As correctly explained by the Examiner (Ans. 9–12), Appellants' arguments do not accurately represent the issues raised by the Examiner's rejection. In this regard, Appellants fail to challenge with any reasonable specificity the Examiner's findings (i) that Wang discloses animal litter of the type encompassed by claims 12 and 14 except for the claim 12 requirement of at least 15% by weight of copra residue and (ii) that Otsuji discloses animal litter containing copra residue for deodorizing purposes (see, e.g., id. at 5). These findings support the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide Wang's animal litter with copra residue for deodorizing purposes in view of Otsuji (id.). Appeal 2012-006315 Application 12/049,821 3 This obviousness conclusion is well taken because the proposed combination would yield no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (In assessing the obviousness of claims to a combination of prior art elements, the question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."). Likewise, the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of copra residue, thereby resulting in the percentage required by claim 12, is well supported for the undisputed reasons given by the Examiner (see, e.g., Ans. 5). Appellants offer no reasonably specific explanation why an artisan would not have provided the animal litter of Wang with copra residue in order to obtain benefit of its deodorizing function or why an artisan would not have optimized the percentage of copra residue in order to achieve a deodorizing effect. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation