Appeal No. 2001-0355
Application No. 08/750,069
not possess hexenuronidase activity” (brief, page 11). The examiner, on the other
hand, considers the data in this declaration to show that the degree of hexenuronidase
activity required by the independent claims on appeal in fact is exhibited by these prior
art enzymes.
In this last mentioned regard, the examiner points out that Table 1 of the
declaration shows Pulpzyme™ HA (i.e., the enzyme of Pedersen) lowers the amount of
HexAX3 (i.e., by altering it to HexAX2).1 In the examiner’s view, this reduction satisfies
the appealed claim 1 requirement that “at least a part of the hexenuronic acid groups of
the lignocellulosic material is selectively removed” since the aforementioned HexAX3
constitutes “a part of the hexenuronic acid groups of the lignocellulosic material” and is
“selectively removed” (i.e., by alteration to HexAX2).2
The examiner’s above-discussed reasoning has merit. Perhaps more
significantly, this reasoning has not been contested by the appellants with any
reasonable specificity. These circumstances lead us to agree with the examiner that
the HexAX3 reduction exhibited by the enzymes of Pedersen and the admitted prior art
1 The data of declaration Table 1 reflects that Ecopulp X-200 exhibits a similar (albeit smaller)
reduction of this type. According to the appellants (see page 3 of the communication filed March 24, 2000
as paper no. 19), “the glucuronidase enzyme present in ‘Pulpzyme HA’ and ‘Ecopulp X-200' is exactly the
same enzyme as the one used in PCT 93/11296 [i.e., the admitted prior art]”.
2 The examiner first made these points in the advisory action mailed March 3, 2000 as paper no.
18 in response to the February 25, 2000 filing of the § 1.132 declaration under consideration.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007