Appeal No. 1996-0906
Application No. 08/110,341
carried out, also at lower temperatures, whereby the benefits of the
lipases are obtained without having to resort to special carefully
selected detergent compositions or special washing or soaking steps
or without having to treat the fabrics for long periods with the lipase-
containing composition [emphasis added].
In response the examiner states (Answer, page 11) that “in addition to lipase
being in a normal washing composition, Thom discloses (col 1) that it is known to
incorporate lipase into a liquid used for soaking before washing. This suggests that
lipase can be in a pre-wash composition such as the pre-spot composition of Clark
and lipase is not limited to being in a normal washing composition.” We see no
such suggestion in the examiner’s reference to Thom. Thom discloses (Column 1,
lines 45-49) in reference to the lipase solutions referenced by the examiner that
“[o]verall, the wash process described by these specifications needed two separate
formulated products; it was cumbersome and it would be of limited applicability in
practice.” At Column 2, lines 7-11, Thom discloses “[t]he above prior art therefore
either teaches to use a specific lipase in detergent compositions, or to formulate
specific detergent compositions and/or wash regimes for inclusion of lipases
therein.” Thom further discloses (column 2, lines 7-11) that “[i]t is an object of the
present invention to provide lipase-containing detergent compositions which have
an improved overall detergency performance and which show significant detergency
improvements by the inclusion of lipases therein.” Therefore, as noted by the
examiner, while Thom makes reference, as background information, to a lipase
containing soaking step, Thom specifically identifies such a step as “cumbersome”
and of “limited applicability” (Thom, column 1, lines 45-49). As noted by appellant,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007