Ex parte KURIHARA et al. - Page 7




               Appeal No. 1996-1960                                                                                                    
               Application No. 07/975,167                                                                                              


                                                    5                                                                                  
               which these substrates were made.   Moreover, the examiner has failed to point out and we do not find                   

               where McCroskey, Farnham, Blair and/or Rauscher disclose or suggest either substrates for measuring                     

               lipase activity or C -C  fatty acids as blocking groups.  Therefore, while                                              
                                   5   30                                                                                              
               the references could be combined as the examiner argues, the examiner has failed to provide a                           

               coherent reason why the references should be combined.  The mere fact that the prior art could be so                    

               modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of                

               the modification.  In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d 115, 117, 10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398-99 (Fed. Cir.                               

               1989); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                           

                       We note that the examiner appears to have changed his position in his response to appellants’                   

               arguments, i.e., that “the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would                 

               have recognized the advantages of the p-nitrophenol substrates and would have substituted them for the                  

               polysaccharides of Kasahara” (answer, page 8, para. 3 and page 13, top para.); that “[t]he real world                   

               clinical chemist recognizes that nitrophenol substituted saccharides are functional equivalents of                      

               saccharides for the determination of serum enzymes” (answer, page 11, para. 2); and, “there is ample                    

               motivation in the prior art to replace unsubstituted saccharides with saccharides containing p-                         

               nitrophenol is [sic, as] set forth in Farnham et al. in the section entitled ‘Background of the Invention’              


                       5The claimed invention has been limited to recite G ~ OR  sugar esters having only one or two glucose           
                                                                          3                                                            
               units, i.e., glucoside or maltoside derivatives.  According to the examiner, “[i]t is important to note that the invention
               originally claimed included substrates with sufficient glucose units so that they would function as amylase” (answer,   
               page 6, fn 2).  The examiner’s position began to fall apart when the claims were so narrowed.                           
                                                                 - 7 -                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007