Appeal No. 2006-0201 Page 8
Application No. 10/125,272
4. Other obviousness rejections
The examiner also rejected claims 1 and 3-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on
the following combinations of references:
• Barendse3 or Harz,4 combined with De Lima and Yamada;
• Olsen5 or Bisgard-Frantzen,6 combined with Yamada; and
• WO 98/549807 or WO 98/55599,8 combined with De Lima and Yamada.
The examiner characterized the additional references as follows:
• “Barendse and Harz each teach an enzyme containing granulate” (Examiner’s
Answer, page 7);
• “Olsen and Bisgard[-Frantzen] each teach making the claimed enzyme
containing granulate since they teach enzymes mixed with water, a carrier and an
additive” (id., page 8); and
• “The WO’s each teach making the claimed enzyme containing granulate” (id.,
page 9).
We have reviewed the cited references but neither the examiner’s explanation of
the rejection nor our review of the reference has revealed any disclosure that would
have suggested a process meeting all the limitations of the method of instant claim 1.
None of the additional references make up for the deficiencies of De Lima and Yamada,
discussed above. We therefore reverse the rejections based on Barendse or Harz,
3 Barendse et al., U.S. Patent 5,827,709, issued October 27, 1998
4 Harz et al., U.S. Patent 5,972,669, issued October 26, 1999
5 Olsen et al., U.S. Patent 5,856,451, issued January 5, 1999
6 Bisgard-Frantzen et al., U.S. Patent 6,106,828, issued August 22, 2000
7 Barendse et al., WO 98/54980, published December 10, 1998
8 Barendse et al., WO 98/55599, published December 10, 1998
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007