Appeal No. 1996-0906
Application No. 08/110,341
The Butler in view of Thom and Matsuo series:
The examiner reasons (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 8-9):
It would have been obvious to use lipase from Pseudomonas as the
hydrolytic enzyme immobilized by Butler on cloth to produce a self-
cleaning cloth to obtain the function of the lipase when used in
detergent compositions and pre-soak liquids as disclosed by Thom et
al, i. e. to obtain the function of the lipase to hydrolyze oil and aid in its
removal from cloth. The use of lipase as the immobilized hydrolytic
enzyme of Butler would have been particularly obvious when
producing a self-cleaning butcher’s apron since a butcher’s apron is
well known to come into contact with oil and fat contained by meat
being butchered.… [I]t would have been obvious that enzymes could
be adsorbed directly on the cloth without derivatizing in view of
Matsuo et al disclosing adsorbing lipase directly to different carriers
including a cellulose carrier (col 5, lines 45-50).
Appellants argue (Reply Brief, pages 6-7) referencing column 55, lines
20-23, that “Butler teaches away from combining such a ‘self-cleaning’ cloth
or carrier with a detergent composition, such as that of Thom et al.” In view
of the teachings of Butler, column 5, lines 20-23, appellant urges (Reply Brief,
page 7) that “to somehow combine such a derivatized cloth [of Butler] with an
enzymatic detergent composition with ‘improved overall detergency’ such as
Thom … would surely completely remove the protein from the cloth and thus,
defeat the very goal of Butler.”
5 We note appellants’ reference to “Butler, column 6, lines 20-23” (Reply Brief, page
7). However, the quoted section of Butler is from column 5, lines 20-23. The correct
reference page is recited herein.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007