Appeal No. 1996-0906
Application No. 08/110,341
support a given position to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full
appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one skilled in the art.” In re
Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241, 147 USPQ 391, 393 (CCPA 1965); see also In re
Mercer, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165-66, 185 USPQ 774, 778 (CCPA 1975).
With this in mind, appellants respond (Brief, page 8) to the examiner’s
rejection by pointing out that “[p]roteases and amylases [disclosed by Clark column
7, lines 12-13] are enzymes that are distinctly different from lipases. The claims on
appeal do not generally recite ‘enzymes’ but require lipases” [emphasis in the
original]. In response, the examiner states (Answer, page 9) that “Clark discloses
‘enzymes’ (col 7, line 6), and it is believed that any enzyme that can provide a
beneficial function is intended. The disclosure that the enzymes may be protease or
amylase enzymes (col 7, lines 12-13) is merely providing examples of enzymes that
can be used.” The examiner further states (Answer, page 10) that “the rejection is
not based on Clark alone but on Clark combined with other references that make
obvious the incorporation of lipase into the pre-spot composition of Clark.”
Appellants address (Brief, page 9) the examiner’s secondary references,
specifically appellants’ argue that Thom “teach away from applications of the Thom
et al. wash composition in pre-wash processes, such as taught by Clark.” To
support this position appellants reference (Brief, bridging paragraph, pages 9-10)
Thom, column 2, lines 16-24 pointing out:
… complete, lipase-containing detergent compositions are provided
by the present invention with which a normal washing process can be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007