Ex Parte Yamka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2017

12528153 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2017)

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.
12/528,153 08/21/2009 Ryan Michael Yamka 8139-00-US-01-HL 1921
23909 7590 01/20/2017
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY
909 RIVER ROAD
PISCATAWAY, NJ 08855
EXAMINER
SASAN, ARADHANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1615
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/20/2017 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):
Paten t_Mail @ colpal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN MICHAEL YAMKA, KIM GENE FRIESEN, and
STEVEN CURTIS ZICKER1
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
Technology Center 1600
Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, TAWEN CHANG, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a feline
pet food composition, which have been rejected as obvious and for
obviousness-type double patenting. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm. We designate the affirmance of the obviousness rejections
as new grounds of rejection.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“Commercially available pet foods, [including] cat food, include
compositions specially formulated to address many different nutritional
needs,” such as different body conditions and different stages of lifecycle.
(Spec. 12.) According to the Specification, Appellants’ invention is
directed to compositions to “enhance a feline’s immune response when
challenged with an antigen.” (Spec. H 4, 5.)
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 are on appeal.2 Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A feline pet food composition for use in enhancing the immune
response of a feline to an antigen comprising:
about 200 to about 1200 IU / kg vitamin E;
about 50 to about 500 ppm vitamin C;
about 0.1 % to about 0.7% EPA;
about 0.1 % to about 0.5% DHA;
about 2400 ppm to about 7500 ppm choline;
about 0.5% to about 6% linoleic acid; and
about 2.5 g/1000 kcal to about 7g/1000 kcal lysine.
(Appeal Br. 11.)
The following grounds of rejection by the Examiner are before us on
review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Zicker,3 Lin,4 Spicer,5 and Friesen.6
2 Claims 11—21 are also pending but stand withdrawn from consideration.
3 Zicker et al.,WO 2005/006877 Al, published Jan. 27, 2005.
4 Lin et al., US 5,690,988, issued Nov. 25, 1997.
5 Spicer et al., US 4,130,651, issued Dec. 19, 1978.
6 Friesen et al., WO 2006/074089 A2, published July 13, 2006.
2
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Friesen and Spicer.
3. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zicker, Lin,
Spicer, Friesen, and Lepine.7
4. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—6 and 8—10 of copending Application No. 12/528,158 in
view of Spicer.
5. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 2, 10, and 21 of copending Application No. 12/528,164.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, and Friesen
As an initial matter, regarding the claimed composition, the Examiner
finds that “[t]he limitation of the use of the composition ‘in enhancing the
immune response of a feline to an antigen’ denotes a future-intended use and
thus, does not accord patentable weight to the claims.” (Final Action 6.)
Regarding the compositional elements of claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Zicker teaches “a feline diet composition containing vitamin E, vitamin C,
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)” within the
claimed ranges. (Final Action 3.) The Examiner notes that Zicker does not
teach a pet food composition that includes choline, linoleic acid, or lysine.
(Final Action 4.) The Examiner finds that Lin teaches a cat food
7 Lepine et al. US 5,851,573, issued Dec. 22, 1998.
3
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
composition that includes choline present in 0.30% by weight and that this
compositional element enhances the palatability of the cat food composition.
(Final Action 4, 6.) The Examiner further finds that Lin teaches that “the cat
food compositions of the present invention to which the choline compound
is added are not intended to be restricted by any specific listing of
ingredients since these will be entirely dependent upon the nutritional
balance of the ration desired as well as their availability to the pet food
manufacturer.” (Final Action 9—10.)
The Examiner finds that Spicer teaches a commercial pet food
composition that includes linoleic acid. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Friesen teaches an animal food composition
that comprises DHA, EPA, vitamin E, vitamin C, choline, and lysine. (Final
Action 4—5.) The Examiner further notes that Friesen discloses food for
domestic cats and that “Friesen teaches that the compositions are formulated
to address specific nutritional differences not only between regular or small
breed dogs, large breed dogs, but also cats.” (Final Action 11.)
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to “prepare a
pet food composition based on the desired nutritional requirement of the pet”
and, thus, include choline (taught by Lin), linoleic acid (taught by Spicer)
and lysine (taught by Friesen) in the Zicker cat food composition with a
reasonable expectation of success. (Final Action 6—7, 9—10.)
We agree with the Examiner’s factual findings and conclusion that the
cat food composition recited in claim 1 would have been obvious from
Zicker, Lin, Spicer, and Friesen. Initially, we note that we agree with the
Examiner’s claim interpretation that the language “for use in enhancing the
4
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
immune response of a feline to an antigen” recited in the claim preamble is
non-limiting. It is an intended use that merely states the purpose of the
claimed subject matter, without adding additional structure to it.
See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320
F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). “[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends
on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.”
Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
Regarding the recited compositional elements of claim 1, we note that
Zicker, Lin, and Friesen are all directed to various additions to cat food
compositions. Zicker teaches that “a diet containing increased amounts of
methionine and cysteine along with increased amounts of vitamin E,
vitamin C, 1-camitine and the omega-3 fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid,
eicosapentaneoic acid, and alpha-linolenic acid” is beneficial to improve
mental activities. (Zicker 125.) Friesen teaches that a cat food composition
that includes protein, fat, choline, manganese, lysine and methionine and at
least one of DHA and EPA, and at least one of vitamin E, vitamin C, taurine,
carnitine, and cysteine, and choline is beneficial to enhance a cat’s alertness
and vitality. (Friesen 130.) Friesen further notes that “[w]hen the
composition is an animal food, vitamins and minerals preferably are
included in amounts required to avoid deficiency and maintain health,” and
notes that “[tjhese amounts are readily available in the art,” citing, among
other publications, “the American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO),” which
“provides recommended amounts of such ingredients for dogs and cats.”
5
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
(Friesen 136.) Lin teaches that adding choline to a cat food composition
improves the palatability of the cat food. (Lin 6:27—30.) Thus, while Zicker
does not teach the cat food composition includes choline and lysine, such
components would have been obvious to add in light of Friesen’s and Lin’s
teachings for improvements to cat food compositions—nutritional value, as
well as palatability, both of which were noted by the Examiner as reasons
suggesting the additions to Zicker. (Advisory Action 2.)
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner (Advisory Action 2; Ans. 4)
that, while Spicer’s teaching of a commercial pet food composition that
includes linoleic acid is a dog food composition, the inclusion of this
component in a cat food composition, such as that described in Zicker
(Zicker || 11, 13, 19, 28) that includes additional sulfur-containing
antioxidant and omega-3 fatty acids, as well as other antioxidants, such as
vitamin E, C, and 1-camitine, would have been obvious (Zicker |). In
particular, Zicker teaches that the diet for the cat can be a standard normal
diet. (Zicker 111.) We note that the AAFCO referred to in Friesen8 as
setting forth compositional elements for cat and dog food that are required to
avoid deficiency and maintain health, while not cited by the Examiner,
indicates that in 2003 the minimum recommended concentration of linoleic
acid to be included in cat food is 0.5%.
We do not find persuasive Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
has not provided the necessary articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning for combining ingredients noted in the compositions of Lin,
8 AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles, available at
http://maxshouse.com/nutrition/aafco_cat_food_nutrient_profiles.htm
6
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
Spicer, and Friesen in the composition of Zicker (Appeal Br. 4). To recap,
each of the identified ingredients are noted in the prior art to be ingredients
that can be included in pet food compositions. As noted, while Spicer
particularly identifies linoleic acid in commercial dog food compositions,
this component is known to be a necessary ingredient in cat food
compositions as well, albeit in lower minimum quantities. The Examiner
contends that in light of these teachings, it would have been reasonable for
one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the addition of the noted three
ingredients to the Zicker formulation to perform their nutritional and
palatability-improving function. The Examiner, thus, met the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Moreover, “[i]n determining
whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007); In reLintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016 (CCPA 1972). Thus, as the Examiner noted (Ans. 3), whether the
specific combination of ingredients in the amounts claimed would affect an
immune response of a feline to an antigen, a non-limiting intended use of the
composition, is of no moment. “What matters is the objective reach of the
claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, [as is the case here], it is [not
patentable] under § 103.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
Also unavailing is Appellants’ argument that “[d]evising a
composition that is intended to be ingested” is an unpredictable endeavor
because compositions “that appear similar can exhibit vastly different
properties.” (Appeal Br. 4.) “Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the
place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
7
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
Appellants’ provide no evidence in support of unpredictable results of
devising an ingestible cat food.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do no persuade us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness over Zicker, Lin, Spicer,
and Friesen. However, because we rely on additional information beyond
what the Examiner pointed to in the rejection (i.e., the AAFCO 2003 food
nutrient profile for cats), we designate our affirmance as a new ground of
rejection.
Claims 2, 5, and 7—9 have not been argued separately and, therefore,
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 10
While Appellants have not argued claim 10 separately as to the
rejection of this claim over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, and Friesen, we address it
separately here in light of the separate rejections that the Examiner made
based on whether or not the composition requires the presence of
carbohydrates. As the Examiner noted (Final Action 8), since claim 10
recites carbohydrate being present in from 0 to about 90% by weight, the
claim does not require the presence of any amount of carbohydrate.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10 over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, and Friesen stands.
However, where the composition is interpreted to include more than
0% carbohydrate, we note that Lin teaches that commercial cat food
compositions include, besides “the nutritional balancing vitamins and
minerals, or other additives,” ingredients that are substantially proteinaceous
ingredients or substantially farinaceous, and the substantially farinaceous
8
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
ingredients “may be defined as having a protein content below about 15% by
weight and a major traction of starchy or carbohydrate containing
materials.” (Lin 3:6—18.) Friesen additionally teaches that the cat food
composition can include among other things “from about 30% to about 35%
by weight starch.” (Friesen 133.) Thus, in light of these teachings, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include more than 0%
carbohydrate in the cat food composition of Zicker as modified by Lin,
Spicer, and Friesen. As with claim 1, because we rely on additional
information beyond what the Examiner pointed to in the rejection to the
extent the composition is interpreted to include more than 0% carbohydrate,
we designate our affirmance of claim 10 based on such an interpretation as a
new ground of rejection.
Obviousness over Friesen and Spicer
The Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Friesen and
Spicer are set forth above. The Examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to include linoleic acid in the Friesen composition that includes
DHA, EPA, vitamins E and C, choline, and lysine in the amounts recited in
claim 1, using known techniques of adding various nutritional components
into a pet food composition in order to yield a functional pet food
composition. (Final Action 12, 15.)
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings regarding the references and conclusion of obviousness.
In addition to the arguments already addressed above, Appellants’
argument that the passages relied on by the Examiner in Friesen are directed
9
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
to a dog food composition is unavailing (Appeal Br. 7—11). First, Friesen’s
teaching of compositions comprising at least one of the named ingredients
necessarily embraces compositions in which all of the named ingredients are
included. Second, as the Examiner noted, Friesen teaches compositions for
cat food (Friesen 143), and indeed identifies the ingredients that are
incorporated into a dog food specifically for a cat food as well. (Friesen |
30.) Moreover, Appellants’ claim 1 recites the open-ended transition phrase
“comprising” and thereby does not exclude any of the additional ingredients
recited in Friesen’s cat food composition but not specifically recited in claim
1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness over Friesen and Spicer.
However, because we agree with the Examiner but rely on additional
information beyond what the Examiner pointed to in his rejection (i.e., the
AAFCO 2003 food nutrient profile for cats), we designate our affirmance as
a new grounds of rejection.
Claims 2, 5, and 7—10 have not been argued separately and, therefore,
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 10 obviousness over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, Friesen, and Lepine
Claim 10 recites 0 to about 90% by weight of carbohydrates. The
Examiner appears to rely on Lepine to the extent that the composition
requires carbohydrates. (Final Action 18—19.) Lepine is directed to a pet
food composition for large or giant breed puppies which reach a body
weight of 65 pounds or more. (Lepine Abs. and 2:6—7.) We agree with
10
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
Appellants that there would be no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art
concerned with a cat food composition to turn to Lepine regarding
carbohydrate composition of the cat food. (Appeal Br. 9.) Moreover, unlike
the inclusion of linoleic acid in a cat food composition, the AAFCO Nutrient
Profile (mentioned in Friesen) does not provide a minimum carbohydrate
composition for cat food.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as being
obvious over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, Friesen, and Lepine because the Examiner
has not sufficiently articulated a reason to combine Lepine with the
remaining references.
Obviousness Double Patenting
Application 12/528,158 has been abandoned. Consequently, the
Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection based
on that application is now moot.
Appellants have not presented any response to rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of provisional obviousness-type double patenting over
claims 1,2, 10, and 21 of copending Application 12/528,164, thus, we
summarily affirm that rejection.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, and Friesen or as
unpatentable over Friesen and Spicer. However, because our reasoning
supplements the Examiner’s position to some degree, we designate our
affirmance of both of these rejections as new grounds of rejection
11
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
We reverse the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zicker, Lin, Spicer, Friesen and Lepine.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—6 and 8—10 of copending Application No. 12/528,158 in view of
Spicer is moot because Application No. 12/528,158 has been abandoned.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7—10 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 2, 10, and 21 of copending Application No. 12/528,164.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Regarding the affirmed rejection, 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
that “Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of
the date of the original decision of the Board.”
In addition to affirming the Examiner’s rejection of the pending
claims, this decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of
rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
12
Appeal 2015-007924
Application 12/528,153
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which
event the prosecution will be remanded to the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .
Should Appellants elect to prosecute further before the Examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek
review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection,
the effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the
prosecution before the Examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does not
result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, this
case should be returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for final action
on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof.
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
13
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Notice of References Cited 12/528,153
Appeal No.
2015-007924
Examiner Art Unit
1615 Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
Date
MM-YYYY Name Classification
A us-
B us-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
1 US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
Date
MM-YYYY Country Name Classification
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
U AAFCO CAT FOOD NUTRIENT PROFILES
V
w
X
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Mfrx’s fymsz
AAFCO CAT FOOD NUTRIENT PROFILES
BASED ON DRY MATTER
2003 OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
Nutrients Units DM Basis Growth & Reproduction Minimum
Adult Maintenance
Minimum Maximum
Crude Protein % 30.0 26.0
Arginine % 1.25 1.04
Histidine % 0.31 0,31
Isoieiidne % 0.52 0.52
Leucine % 1.25 1.25
Lysine % 1.20 0.83
Methionine-cystine % 1.10 1.10
Methionine % 0,62 0.62 1.5 |
Phenylalanine-
tyrosine % 0.88 0.88
Phenyialanine % 0.42 0.42
Threonine % 0.73 0.73
Tryptohan % 0.25 0,16
Valine % 0.62 0.62
Crude Fat % 9.0 9.0
Linoleic acid % 0.5 0.5
Arachidonic acid % 0.02 0.02
Minerals 1
Calcium % 1.0 0.6
Phosphorus % 0.8 0.5
Potassium % 0.6 0.6
Sodium % 0.2 0.2
Chloride % 0,3 0.3
Magnesium % 0.08 0.04
Iron mg/kg 80 80
Copper (extruded) mg/kg 15 5
Copper (canned) mg/kg 5 5
Manganese mg/kg 7.5 7.5
Zinc mg/kg 75 75 2000 !
Iodine mg. kg 0.35 0.35
Selenium mg/kg 0.1 0.1
Vitamins & Others j
Vitamin A lU/kg 9000 5000 750000 j
Vitamin D iU/kg 750 500 10000 |
Vitamin E iU/kg 30 30
Vitamin K mg. kg 0.1 .01
Thiamine mg/kg 5.0 5.0
Riboflavin mg/kg 4.0 4.0
Pantothenic acid mg/kg 5.0 5.0
Niacin mg/kg 60 60
Pyridoxine mg/kg 4.0 4.0
Folic acid mg/kg 0.8 0.8
Biotin mg/kg 0.07 0.07
Vitamin B12 mg/kg 0.02 0.02
Choiine mg/kg 2400 2400
Taurine (extruded) % 0.10 0.10
Taurine (canned) % 0.20 0.20
AAFCO CAT FOOD NUTRIENT PROFILES
BASED ON CALORIE CONTENT'
jMethionine-cystine g 2.75 2.75 |
Methionine g 1.55 1.55 | 3.75
| Phenylalanine-
| tyrosine g 2.20 2.20
Phenylalanine g 1.05 1.05 j
Threonine g 1.83 1.83 j
Tryptohan g 0.63 0.40
Valine g 1.55 1.55 |
jCrude Fat g 22.5 22.5 j
Linoleic acid g 1.25 1.25 j
Arachidonic acid g 0.05 0.05 j
Minerals
Calcium g 2.5 1.5
Phosphorus g 2.0 1.25 |
Potassium g 1.5 1.5 j
Sodium g 0.5 0.5 j
Chloride g 0.75 0.75 |
Magnesium g 0.20 0.10 I
Iron mg 20.0 20.0 |
Copper (extruded) mg 3.75 1.25 ]
Copper(canned) mg 1.25 1.25 |
Manganese mg 1.90 1.90 |
| Zinc mg 18.8 18.8 | 500
Iodine mg 0.09 0.09 |
Selenium mg 0.03 0.03 j
Vitamins & Others
| Vitamin A IU 2250 1250 j 187500
| Vitamin D IU 188 125 | 2500
Vitamin E IU 7.5 7.5 ]
Vitamin K mg 0.Q3 0.03 |
Thiamine mg 1.25 1.25 |
Riboflavin mg 1.00 1.00 |
Pantothenic acid mg 1.25 1.25 J
| Niacin mg 15 15 |
1
Key nutritional factors for adult cats at maintenance
Recommended food levels*
Factors Young To Middle Aged Cats Obese Prone Cats Older Cats
Energy density (kcal ME/g) 4.0-5.0 3.3-3.8 3.5-4.5
Energy density (kJ ME/g) 16.7-20.9 13.8-15.9 14.6-18.8
Protein (%) 30-45 30-45 30-45
Fat (%) 10-30 8-17 10-25
Crude fiber (%) <5 5-15 <10
Calcium (%) 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 0.6-1.0
Phosphorus (%) 0.5-0.8 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.7
Ca/P ratio 0.9:1-1.5:1 0.9:1-1.5:1 0.9:1-1.5:1
Sodium (%) 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.5
Potassium (%) 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0
Magnesium (%) 0.04-0.1 0.04-0.1 0.05-0.1
Chloride (% >0.3 >0.3 >0.3
Average urinary pH 6.2-6.5 6.2-6.5 6.2-6.6
‘Dry matter basis. Concentrations presume an energy density of 4.0 kcal/g. Levels should be corrected for foods with higher energy
densities. Adjustment is unnecessary forfoods with lower energy densities.
Main Subject Index