Ex Parte H. Shih - Page 8


            Appeal No. 2006-0650                                                        Page 8              
            Application No. 10/007,613                                                                      

            15, line 15) for the cleaning and decontamination process.  It would have been obvious          
            to have utilized a keratinase, rather than the subtilisin, since Huth teaches these as          
            suitable proteolytic enzymes for the disinfection of medical devices.  Id., column 15,          
            lines 13-15.  Appellant did not provide any arguments to the contrary.                          
                   In another example, Huth describes a pericylinder carrier (“article”) which was          
            submerged in a test tube containing a protease (“(d) means for exposing said articles to        
            said proteolytic enzyme”) which had been placed in a water bath (“(b) means for                 
            heating”) to be equilibrated to a specific temperature.  Id., Column 31, lines 5-10.  At        
            other locations in the patent, Huth teaches enzyme reactions being carried out at, e.g.,        
            40°C (Id., column 32, lines 65-66) and with enzymes active at temperatures of about             
            50°C (Id., column 15, lines 6-12).  As mentioned above, Huth also discloses the                 
            proteolytic enzyme to be a keratinase (column 15, line 15).  For the same reasons as            
            above, these elements also clearly render obvious the limitations (b)-(d) set forth in          
            claim 56, including the temperature range recited in the “wherein clause.”                      
                   Appellant argued that the references cited in the rejection do not lead to “the          
            proteolytic enzyme and the exposing means for simultaneous heating and enzyme                   
            exposure to allow the articles to be at an elevated temperature in a range of from about        
            50°C to about 65°C during exposure to a proteolytic enzyme.”  Brief, page 10, lines 4-7.        
            This particular range is not recited in claim 56, which we have chosen as a                     
            representative claim.  Nonetheless, we find Appellant’s argument flawed.  Huth describe         
            a prior art patent in which cleaning and disinfection of medical instruments was                
            accomplished at 55°C to 65°C using a solution that contained a proteolytic enzyme.              
            Huth, column 9, lines 19-30.  Huth also provides examples of proteolytic enzymes which          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007