PALM SILAGE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2020002598 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
14/769,058 08/19/2015 James Clifford Parks SILAG.001NP 9636
20995 7590 12/31/2020
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
SAYALA, CHHAYA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES CLIFFORD PARKS
Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058
Technology Center 1700
Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s September 4, 2018 decision to finally reject claims 24, 29–31,
and 37–52 (“Final Act.”). An oral hearing was held on December 10, 2020,
an oral transcript of which will be part of the record. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Palm
Silage, Inc. (Appeal Br. 4).
Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to an animal feed formed with a
base of palm fronds combined with dates (Abstract). According to
Appellant, palm fronds and palm dates have been considered waste
materials, and have faced challenges when attempts have been made to
include them in feed pellets (Appeal Br. 4). Claim 24, reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
24. A method of making an animal feed for cattle, the method
comprising;
collecting palm fronds, wherein the palm fronds are from
palms selected from the group consisting of Washingtonia
Robusta palms, Washingtonia Filifera palms, Phoenix
Dactylifera palms, and Phoenix Canariensis palms;
drying the palm fronds in windrows to a moisture content
of less than 15%;
shredding, chopping, or grinding the dried palm fronds;
combining a date palm fruit component to the shredded,
chopped or ground palm fronds, wherein the dates of the date
palm fruit component have a total digestible nutrient (TDN)
content of between approximately 65% and approximately 90%
on a dry basis;
grinding the combination of the date palm fruit
component together with the previously shredded, chopped or
ground palm fronds to form a mixture of ground dates and
ground palm fronds;
combining a nutritional additive component to the
mixture of the ground dates and ground palm fronds, wherein
the nutritional additive component is a grain;
mixing the ground palm fronds, the ground dates, and the
nutritional additive component to form a feed mixture for cattle;
compressing the feed mixture for cattle to form cattle
feed pellets, wherein the pellets comprise between about 40%
and about 60% ground palm frond by weight of the pellets,
wherein the pellets comprise between about 10% and about
45% dates by weight of the pellets, wherein the pellets
Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058

3
comprise at least about 5% nutritional additive by weight of the
pellets, wherein the pellets have a nutritional content of
between about 5% and about 30% crude protein, between about
2% and about 8% crude fat, between about 15% and about 45%
crude fiber, between about 4% and about 17% ash, between
about 0.1% to about 1% minerals, and wherein the pellets have
a total digestible nutrient (TDN) content of between about 45%
and about 65%.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Werner et al. CA 2 319 978 A1 March 20, 2002
Burghardi et al. US 7,296,537 B2 November 20, 2007
Cummings et al. US 5,250,307 October 5, 1993
Seike et al. GB 2 185 673 A July 29, 1987
Inoue et al. GB 2 200 027 A July 27, 1988
Preston GB 797,763 July 9, 1958
W.H. Barreveld, “Date Palm Products” downloaded from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0681e/t0681e00.htm, Chapter 4, 16 total
pages, 2/2001.
Mahgoub et al., Dates: Production, Processing, Food, and Medicinal
Values, Chapter 23, pp. 323–38, CRC Press (2012).
Feedipedia (downloaded from internet archives
https://web.archive.org/web/20121129025143/http://www.feedipedia.org
:80/node/6916, dated 11/29/2012, 12 pages).
Rick J. Rasby et al. (“Understanding and Using a Feed Analysis Report,”
dated September 2008, 11 pages).
D. Genin et al., “Valorisation of date-palm by-products (DPBP) for
livestock feeding in Southern Tunisia I-Potentialities and traditional
utlisation,” CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires
Méditerranéens; n. 59, pp. 221–26, 2004.
“Armcon Engineering” (downloaded from
https://wwwoyoutubeocom/watch?v= JSomAdfMNs, 3 pages dated
2/9/2007).

Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058

4
REJECTION2
Claims 24, 29–31, and 37–52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Genin and Preston, in view of Inoue, Feedipedia, Armcon
Engineering, Seike, Barreveld, Mahgoub, Werner, Burghardi, and Rasby.
DISCUSSION
Because we decide this appeal based on a limitation found in each of
independent claims 24, 40, and 47, we focus our analysis on claim 24. This
analysis is equally applicable to each of the independent claims and,
therefore, all of the dependent claims as well.
The Examiner’s findings with regards to claim 24 are set forth at
pages 6–10 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Feedipedia discloses “chopping, grinding and drying” palm leaves (Final
Act. 6), and that drying the leaves prior to shredding or chopping them
would have been obvious “so that moisture presence would not impede the
grinding by causing any agglomeration due to moisture” (Final Act. 7).
Appellant argues that Feedipedia does not teach or suggest the
claimed limitation of drying the palm fronds to a moisture level of less than
15% prior to shredding, chopping, or grinding them as set forth in claim 24
(see, e.g., Reply Br. 7). Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible
error.
Feedipedia does not specifically disclose drying palm fronds prior to
chopping, shredding, or grinding. The specific language in Feedipedia on
this issue reads as follows:
Oil palm fronds, however, have a high silica and a high fibre
content, are poor in protein and have an unbalanced mineral

2 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 were withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058

5
content. These limitations can be overcome by physical and/or
mechanical processing such as immediate chopping, grinding
and drying, pre-digestion of fiber through chemical and
biological treatment and stimulation of rumen microbes by
supplementation with energy and protein rich ingredients or
with urea and molasses and supplemention with essential
minerals like Ca, P and S.

(Feedipedia, p. 3, emphasis added). The language above does not indicate
that the drying occurs prior to chopping and/or grinding. The Examiner also
finds that drying before chopping/shredding would have been obvious to
avoid agglomeration during the chopping/shredding (Final Act. 7). However,
the Examiner makes no findings which would suggest drying the leaves to a
moisture level of 15% or less prior to chopping/shredding/grinding.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In this instance, the evidence of record does not support the
Examiner’s determination it would have been obvious to dry the palm fronds
to a moisture content of less than 15% prior to grinding/shredding/chopping
them. Instead, the Examiner’s determination that this limitation would have
Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058

6
been obvious appears to be based on impermissible hindsight and knowledge
of Appellant’s claims.
We also note that, as argued by Appellant, none of the cited art
teaches grinding previously dried palm fronds with dates. Preston, which
the Examiner finds teaches co-grinding of dates and palm fronds, does not
teach or suggest that the palm fronds are dried prior to the co-grinding
(much less than the palm fronds are first dried, then ground, and then co-
ground with the dates, as set forth in the claimed methods). Though the
Examiner determines that the combined teachings of Preston, Inoue, Seike,
Feedipedia, and Barreveld would have made it obvious to grind palm fronds
and dates together (Ans. 25), none of the references suggest first drying the
fronds to a moisture level of 15% or less, then grinding/chopping/shredding
them, and then co-grinding that mixture with dates.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of each of the independent
claims and, therefore, all of the dependent claims as well.

Appeal 2020-002598
Application 14/769,058

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24, 29–31,
37–52
103(a) Genin, Preston,
Inoue, Feedipedia,
Armcon Engineering,
Seike, Barreveld,
Mahgoub, Werner,
Burghardi, Rasby
24, 29–31,
37–52

REVERSED