Appeal No. 1996-0906
Application No. 08/110,341
In response to appellants’ argument, the examiner states
(Supplemental Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 6-7) that:
[T]he rejection is not based on combining the self-cleaning cloth [of
Butler] with the detergent of Thom et al but on using as the enzyme of
Butler that cleans a soiled butcher’s apron, the lipase from
Pseudomonas disclosed by Thom et al. … The apron contains
attached enzymes such as lipase that … remove the oil or fat without
the presence of a detergent.
Appellants address (Reply Brief, page 7) this detergent aspect by
referencing column 2, lines 16-24 of Thom (discussed above) stating that
“Thom et al.’s detergent wash composition for washing fabrics teaches away
from the non-detergent pre-wash preparation of a ‘self-cleaning’ derivatized
cloth such as that of Butler which … loses its ‘self-cleaning’ properties in the
presence of a detergent wash composition.” Appellants emphasize (Reply
Brief, page 7) that “prior art references are to be considered as a whole, and
portions arguing against or teaching away from the claimed invention must
be considered.”
In response, the examiner states (Supplemental Answer, page 7) “[i]t
is granted … that the references as a whole must be considered. This is the
reason that one must consider the entire teachings of Thom et al including
the teaching that it is known in the prior art to use lipase in a soaking step
followed by a washing step with a detergent-containing liquor.” The examiner
again ignores the disclosure in Thom (column 1, lines 45-49) which
specifically states “these specifications [which refer to the section relied
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007