Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that claims
1-4 and 7 are unpatentable over Panandiker.
Panandiker discloses in Example I, Formulation D, a liquid detergent
composition that includes propanediol, amylase, boric acid, and water in
amounts that fall within Appellants’ weight percent ranges recited in claim
1. Panandiker does not specify which alpha amylase enzyme is used as the
“amylase” in Formulation D. However, Panandiker indicates that “[s]uitable
amylases include TermamylR . . ., FungamylR. . ., and BANR . . .” (col. 9, ll.
37-39). This disclosure renders obvious using TERMAMYLŽ,
FUNGAMYLŽ or BANŽ as the amylase enzyme in the compositions of
Example I. Merck, 874 F.2d at 807, 10 USPQ2d at 1846 (explaining that the
disclosure of a multitude of effective combinations does not render any
particular formulation less obvious). Therefore, it would have been obvious
to use FUNGAMYLŽ or BANŽ as the amylase enzyme in the liquid
detergent compositions exemplified by Panandiker in Example I,
Formulation D.
Appellants’ argument regarding unexpected results is unpersuasive.
As noted above, Appellants’ evidence of unexpected results is not compared
with the closest prior art and the evidence of unexpected results is not
commensurate in scope with the claims such evidence is meant to support.
For further explanation, see our discussion above in the CLAIM 1 section of
our discussion of the Severson, Jr. rejection.
We also note that Appellants appear to be merely claiming an alpha
amylase liquid detergent composition and process of making the detergent
composition, which Panandiker demonstrated were previously known, but
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013