Question: James Salt developed an environmentally friendly technique for controlling deer overpopulation. Briefly, Salt discovered a non-hormonal substance XYZ ("Antiagra") that efficiently suppresses sexual function in male deer with minimal side effects. Salt determined that the use of a non-hormonal substance eliminated adverse long-term health effects that may be experienced with hormonal substances. He then dissolved an effective amount of Antiagra in salt water, poured the resulting solution into a plurality of twenty-gallon tubs, and heated the tubs to evaporate the water. The resulting blocks of salt, throughout which Antiagra was evenly disbursed, were distributed in overpopulated areas during deer mating season to serve as salt licks. Stags that used the salt lick show no interest in mating, thereby lowering the pregnancy rate among does and helping to control the deer population. Salt has retained you to conduct a prior art search and, if appropriate, prepare and file a patent application. The only relevant prior art located during the prior art search is a patent to Deere that discloses a salt lick on which a hormonal substance is sprayed. A doe that uses the salt lick ingests the hormonal substance which, in turn, suppresses ovulation and thereby reduces the pregnancy rate. You prepare and file a patent application that provides a fully enabling disclosure and includes four claims sets. Claims 1-5 are directed specifically to the non-hormonal substance (Antiagra), claims 6-9 are directed to a salt lick laced with a non-hormonal substance that, when ingested by a male deer, suppresses sexual function in the male deer, claims 9-14 are directed to the method of forming the salt lick, and claims 14-20 are directed to a method for controlling deer population by distributing salt licks that are treated with an effective amount of XYZ to reduce pregnancy rates. You also properly establish small entity status on behalf of Salt at the time the application is filed.  Claim 15 of the application reads: "A method for reducing pregnancy rate in wild deer population comprising the step of placing at least one salt lick containing an effective amount of XYZ in a location accessible to wild male deer so that XYZ is ingested by said male deer." The specification provides adequate disclosure as to what constitutes an "effective amount" of XYZ. In addition to the Deere patent, the examiner locates a prior art patent to John Doe that discloses the non-hormonal substance XYZ for use as a softening agent in skin cream. There is no disclosure or suggestion in the Doe patent of any other potential use for XYZ. Which of the following statements is most consistent with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
A. The Examiner may properly reject claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Deere in view of Doe because Deere teaches the method of distributing salt licks treated with a substance to reduce pregnancy rates and suppression of sexual activity in male deer is merely an inherent characteristic of a known substance XYZ.
B. The examiner may not rely on the Doe patent in a 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness rejection because there is no evidence that Salt was aware of its teachings at the time the invention was made and therefore the invention could not have been obvious to Salt at that time.
C. The examiner may rely on the Doe patent in making an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only if the Doe patent is in the field of Salt's endeavor or, if not in that field, then reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Salt was concerned.
D. The examiner may properly reject claim 15 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification is inadequate to enable a person skilled in the art to which it pertains to practice the invention.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)