Appeal No. 1996-3550
Application 08/218,165
claimed invention. We note, however, limitations in certain of the dependent claims not
anticipated by the references: Sekiya I does not disclose kale foliage as part of the
biomass (as required in claim 9); neither Hatanaka nor Olías discloses mustard foliage as
part of the biomass (as required by claim 14).
Accordingly, we affirm Rejection III over Sekiya I as it pertains to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8
and 11 through 13, and reverse the rejection as it pertains to claim 9. We affirm
Rejections IV over Hatanaka and Rejection V over Olías as they pertain to claims 1, 3, 5, 7
and 12, and reverse the rejections as they pertain to claim 14.
Rejection VI
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as anticipated
by Muller. Muller is not in the English language, but does include an English translation of
the abstract. There is nothing in the abstract to indicate simultaneous contact of the
required enzymes and fatty acids to produce green note compounds. The examiner cites
several non-English portions of the reference (page 3, Example 1 and page 6) as
evidence that “[t]he recited enzymes and unsaturated acid precursors are inherently
present in the plant biomass,” but upon cursory inspection, Example 1 at least, appears to
describe a series of sequential reactions.
Accordingly, Rejection VI is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007