Ex Parte Yamka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 18, 201712528153 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2017) 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. 12/528,153 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation