Appeal No. 1996-2208
Application No. 08/180,194
dried extract of bacterial cells (not L. helveticus) containing aminopeptidase to convert the
bittering substances to “flavour-neutral substances.” The process “is conveniently carried
out in aqueous conditions at temperatures from 10 and [sic, to] 50EC, more preferably
from 25 to 45EC.” Pages 4 and 5.
According to appellants, “[a]n uncontested difference between the claimed subjects
[sic] matter and the primary Bartels references include [sic], for all claims, the temperatures
of treating with L. helveticus” (Main Brief, page 25). We agree with appellants that the
dispositive question “is whether the teachings of the [secondary references] would have
led one of ordinary skill to modify the Bartels [I and II] references such that one would have
manipulated substances as claimed at the temperatures claimed” (Id., page 26).
The examiner believes that:
[T]he claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious as a whole to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made, in
view of the close similarity between the process of Bartels et al. (I) and (II)
and the present process of using L. helveticus in a protein hydrolysis
process, and the recognition in the art of submitting a variety of proteins of
different origins to hydrolysis processes for debittering purposes, as well as
adjusting process parameters, such as temperature and cell concentration,
for optimization purposes as evidenced by the teachings of Visser, Frey et
al. and Bergey’s Manual, because of the advantages in culturing a known
thermophilic organism such as L. helveticus with a reasonable expectation of
a faster growth rate, a concomitantly increased production of enzymes and a
faster reaction rate. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5).
and that:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007