Appeal No. 2005-1745
Application No. 09/161,680
Although the examiner states that she has relied on some form of evidence to
support her position, said evidence was neither attached to the electronic copy of the
office action, nor does it appear to be elsewhere in the electronic file. We do not find
this omission to be fatal given the strong opposing evidence provided by the appellants.
That is, the appellants provide ample evidence which demonstrates that two of the
enzymes which the examiner questions were known in the art and commercially
available. Specifically, with respect to the P. cepacia lipase AH and the C. antarctica
lipase A, the appellants provide information posted on the Amano Enzyme, Inc, the
Sanger Institute, the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ),
and the Novozymes A/S websites which show that these enzymes are commercially-
available products. Brief, pp. 5-7; attachments to the amendment received by the
USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) on September 16, 2003. Thus, we find that
the phrases P. cepacia lipase AH and the C. antarctica lipase A do not require elaborate
interpretation. Since the evidence of record demonstrates that a person skilled in the
art at the time of the invention would have understood the meaning of Pseudomonas
cepacia lipase AH and Candida antarctica lipase A, we find that the claims “set out and
circumscribe” the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art “with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d at 1235, 169 USPQ at 238; see
also, Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1326, 75 USPQ2d at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007