Appeal No. 95-0523
Application No. 07/885,490
colon." The examiner's statement of rejection does not
mention these claim limitations. The statement would lead one
to believe that "the enzymes as taught by Jost et al., Miles
(EP'986), Schweikhardt et al., Puski et al., and Tang et al."
are in a form and quantity such as is required by the claims.
With the exception of Tang this is simply not the case.
Moreover, the enzyme taught by Tang is neither a protease nor
a polysaccharide-degrading enzyme, which all of the claims
require, rather it is a lipase.
Appellant relies upon this aspect of the claims in
arguing for the patentability of the claims at issue. See,
for example, page 13 of the Appeal Brief, the third complete
paragraph ("None of the prior art discloses addition of a
protease or a carbohydrate degrading enzyme to baby formula
which is not removed or inactivated prior to administration of
the formula to the baby."). On page 14 of the Appeal Brief,
in the second paragraph appellant argues that "the prior art
teaches away from the need to add a protease or a carbohydrate
degrading enzyme to a formula where the enzyme is available
following ingestion" due to the fact that the prior art
approach has been to use the enzymes to digest these
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007