Appeal No. 1996-0858 Page 6
Application No. 08/117,648
examiner's application of the applied references ignores the
claimed limitations as underlined in the paragraph above. The
examiner's assertions in the answer regarding whether or not
it would have been obvious to employ a spray technique as
opposed to a soaking step, vary the enzyme concentration and
vary the reaction time in the laundering technique of Tai in
view of Spendel's teachings of laundering techniques that save
water simply do not fully address and appreciate the subject
matter that is actually recited in the claims on appeal. As
indicated above, the examiner has not provided a satisfactory
explanation as to how the claimed step of applying surfactant
free aqueous cellulase solution to cotton toweling prior to
the application of a finish during the toweling manufacture
would have been rendered obvious by the applied prior art
teachings.
Likewise, conspicuously missing from the examiner's
discussion of the rejection of product by process claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Tai in view of Spendel (as discussed above) or
Barbesgaard is recognition by the examiner that the product of
claim 17 is drawn to a cotton toweling that is treated with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007