Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
Claim 6, 10 and 13 are rejected under 103(a) over Panandiker.
Appellants argue that Panandiker teaches using propanediol (i.e., the
polyhydroxy compound) in an amount of “10% or more by weight of the
composition” which is contrary to explicit polyhydroxy compound ranges
recited in claims 6, 10 and 13 (Br. 16, 17, 19). Moreover, Appellants argue
that Panandiker does not “teach, suggest or recognize the important ability to
successfully lower the amount of propanediol [i.e., polyhydroxy compound]
. . .” (Br. 17).
The Examiner responds that Panandiker discloses a composition using
10% propanediol in Example I and 3.2% propanediol in Example IV
(Answer 6). According to the Examiner, such disclosure by Panandiker
“encompass[es] the [claimed] limitation of about 0.1% to about 15% wt and
0.1% to about 5% wt polyhydroxy compound as recited in the instant
independent claims” (Answer 6). Based on Panandiker’s disclosures, the
Examiner concludes that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to optimize the amount of propanediol as recited by the instant
claims, because the teachings of Panandiker . . . suggest a broad range, 1%
to 40% of non-ionic surfactants including propanediol in general” (Answer
6). The Examiner cites to Panandiker’s column 3, line 65 to column 4, line
3 as teaching the claimed range of non-ionic surfactants.
Appellants reply that Panandiker’s Example IV teaching of 3.2%
propanediol does not indicate that any alpha amylase enzyme is used in that
particular composition (Reply Br. 4). Rather, Panandiker’s Example I,
which includes alpha amylase enzyme, indicates a detergent composition
which “employ[s] significantly higher amounts of propanediol” (Reply Br.
4).
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013