Appeal No. 95-1779
Application 07/683,130
contact with a liquid (e.g. an enzyme reactor). As a
result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to determine the optimum manner in which
the enzyme of Christie is incorporated into the marine
coating while maintaining the required antifouling
function
discussed by the reference of Christie. Whether the
enzyme is physically entrapped or chemically attached
would have been merely an obvious matter in design choice
based on considerations such as the specific enzyme to be
immobilized, the material of the surface to be coated,
the material of the coating and/or the environment in
which the surface is to be exposed.
It is apparent to this panel that the examiner’s
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. We find no
indication in the references cited by the examiner that the
manner in which the enzyme of an enzymatic antifouling marine
coating is incorporated in the coating is a result effective
variable. Moreover, we find no prior art teaching that
“[w]hether the enzyme is physically entrapped or chemically
attached would have been merely an obvious matter in design
choice based on considerations such as the specific enzyme to
be immobilized, the material of the surface to be coated, the
material of the coating and/or the environment in which the
surface is to be exposed.” Furthermore, we find no reasonable
suggestion in the cited prior art which would have led persons
having ordinary skill in the art to chemically bond an enzyme
in an enzymatic antifouling marine coating to the inert matrix
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007