Appeal No. 1996-0858 Page 7
Application No. 08/117,648
aqueous cellulase prior to the application of a finish
thereto. In this regard, the examiner's analysis of the
combined teachings of the applied laundering references
(answer, pages 5, 9 and 10) does not adequately explain how
the references are being combined such that the manufactured
toweling product of claim 17 would have been prima facie
obvious over the textiles laundered with the detergent of Tai
as modified by the teachings of Spendel or Barbesgaard. On
this record, we cannot conclude that a cotton toweling product
that has cellulase applied thereto prior to a finish as
claimed would have reasonably been expected to have
substantially the same or similar properties as a previously
manufactured textile product that is laundered with a combined
detergent and cellulase as apparently suggested by the
examiner.
We point out that in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, it
is basic that all elements recited in a claim must be
considered and given effect in assessing the patentability of
that claim against the prior art. In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007