Appeal No. 1996-0906
Application No. 08/110,341
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 15, 16, 18-
20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Thom
‘291 or Thom ‘390 and Matsuo.
The examiner relies on Wiersema for the teaching of a lipase derived from
Pseudomonas putida ATCC 53552. According to the examiner (Answer, page 9)
“it would have been obvious to add lipase from Pseudomonas putida ATCC 53552
for the reasons set forth above [to obtain the advantage of this lipase having good
reactivity for triglyceride substrates, even in the presence of anionic surfactants]
when rejecting these claims.” However, while Wiersema teaches a lipase,
Wiersema fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Butler in view of
Thom ‘291 or Thom ‘390 and Matsuo, as discussed above.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 10-14, 17, 21,
22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Butler in view of Thom ‘291 or Thom ‘390 and Matsuo as applied to claims 1, 6-9,
15, 16, 18-20 and 23 above, and further in view of Wiersema.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007