Appeal No. 1996-0826
Application No. 08/271,583
II. Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klebanoff
(01) taken with Hasegawa.
Klebanoff (01) describes the antibacterial effect of MPO-halide-hydrogen peroxide on
Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus acidophilus (page 2133, col. 1 - page 2134, col. 2).
Hasegawa has been discussed supra.
The examiner again acknowledges that Klebanoff (01) fails to disclose the selective nature of
the peroxidase-halide-hydrogen peroxide system, but asserts that such selectivity is either an inherent
feature of the system or would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Hasegawa (answer, pages
7-8).
Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth in the preceding rejection, we find that the examiner
has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness of
claims 1 and 15 over Klebanoff (01) taken with Hasegawa.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION - 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b)
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the “inventive concept” of the
claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by the prior art
reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The law of anticipation only requires that the
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007