Appeal No. 1996-0906
Application No. 08/110,341
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 15, 16, 18-
20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Thom
‘291 or Thom ‘390 and Matsuo.
The examiner relies on Wiersema for the teaching of a lipase derived from
Pseudomonas putida ATCC 53552. According to the examiner (Answer, page 7)
“it would have been obvious to add lipase from Pseudomonas putida ATCC 53552
to obtain the advantage of this lipase having good reactivity for triglyceride
substrates, even in the presence of anionic surfactants.” However, while Wiersema
teaches a lipase, Wiersema fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combination of
Clark in view of Thom ‘291 or Thom ‘390 and Matsuo, discussed above.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 10-14, 17, 21,
22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of
Thom ‘291 or Thom ‘390 and Matsuo as applied to claims 1, 6-9, 15, 16, 18-20 and
23 above, and further in view of Wiersema.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007