Ex parte Vinci et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 1998

08097063 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 23, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ALFREDO VINCI,
KENNETH R. CUMMINGS
AND M. STEPHEN LAJOIE
_____________
Appeal No. 95-4575
Application 08/097,0631
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, PAK and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-4575
Application No. 08/097,063
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 12 which are all of the claims
remaining in the application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a process for the
production of deodorized fatty acid salt feed supplement product
which comprises (1) forming an admixture of reactive ingredients
comprising fatty acid, basic alkaline earth metal compound, an
aqueous medium and a primary amine and (2) recovering a
deodorized fatty acid salt product after completion of the
exothermic salt-forming reaction. This appealed subject matter
is adequately illustrated by claim 1, the sole independent claim
on appeal, which reads as follows:
1. A process for the production of a deodorized fatty acid
salt feed supplement product which comprises (1) forming an
admixture of reactive ingredients comprising (a) at least one
C -C fatty acid which has a detectable content of malodorous14 22
carbonyl compound, (b) between about 0.8-1.5 equivalents of basic
alkaline earth metal compound per equivalent of C -C fatty14 22
acid, (c) between about 10-80 weight percent of an aqueous
medium, based on the weight of fatty acid, and (d) between about
0.1-10 weight percent of R-NH primary amine, based on the weight2
of fatty acid, where R in the primary amine formula is a C -C1 10
organic substituent; and (2) recovering a deodorized fatty acid
salt product after completion of the exothermic salt-forming
reaction.
Appeal No. 95-4575
Application No. 08/097,063
3
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
McAskie 4,853,233 Aug. 1, 1989
Behan et al. (Behan) 5,204,023 Apr. 20, 1993
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over McAskie in view of Behan. It is the
examiner’s basic position that “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in this art to include/incorporate the amine
compound chemical trapping agent disclosed in Behan . . . in the
reactive/reaction mixture of McAskie” (Answer, page 4).
We cannot sustain this rejection.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, Behan teaches
removing or reducing unpleasant malodors arising from the
presence of aldehydic materials in products such as edible fats
by adding thereto a malodor counteractant which comprises the
reaction product of an amine and an organoleptically acceptable
aldehyde. This reaction product constitutes a Schiff’s base.
Thus, even if the teachings of McAskie and Behan were combined in
the manner proposed by the examiner, the resulting process would
include as an admixture of reactive ingredients a Schiff’s base
rather than a primary amine as required by the appealed claims.
Appeal No. 95-4575
Application No. 08/097,063
4
The examiner’s comments at item (2) on page 5 of the answer
suggest that he may believe a primary amine would be “derived
from/generated by” Behan’s above-noted Schiff’s base. However,
we find no evidence, and the examiner points to none, in support
of such a belief. Similarly, even if a primary amine were
“derived from/generated by” the Schiff’s base, we find no
evidence that this would occur during McAskie’s step of forming
an admixture of a fatty acid and a basic alkaline earth metal
compound in an aqueous medium as required by the independent
claim on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
Section 103 rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 12 as
being unpatentable over McAskie in view of Behan.
Appeal No. 95-4575
Application No. 08/097,063
5
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4575
Application No. 08/097,063
6
Charles B. Barris
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC.
469 North Harrison Street
Princeton, NJ 08543