Appeal No. 1999-1981
Application No. 08/628,625
We reverse.
We agree with the examiner to the extent that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the
claimed enzyme taught by Outtrup or the admitted prior art to
produce maltose from liquefied or gelatinized starch in the
process of either Rohrbach and/or Kaper. However, the above 1
combination suggested by the applied prior art does not result
in the claimed process since the applied prior art does not
teach, nor would have suggested, the treatment of raw starch
with the claimed enzyme at a temperature above 40 C, but below o
the starch gelatinization temperature. In spite of
appellants’ repeated arguments regarding the importance of
treating raw starch with the claimed enzyme, the examiner has
not explained, much less supplied evidence, to demonstrate why
1Outtrup provides sufficient motivation to employ the
claimed enzyme since it teaches the advantage of using the
claimed enzyme in producing maltose (thermal stability).
Moreover, as is apparent from the teachings of Rohrbach and
Kaper, it is well known to purify the product of the type
described in Outtrup, i.e., a product containing maltose
resulting from an enzymatic reaction, with a means of
ultrafiltration to obtain a highly pure maltose product (a
product having more than 90% maltose). See Rohrbach, column
7, lines 38-63 and column 8, lines 45-50 and Kaper, column 2,
lines 63-68.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007