Ex parte STARNES - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1997-0467                                                                                         
              Application 08/318,019                                                                                       



              stand allowed.                                                                                               
                     Claims 15 and 17, which are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, read as                     
              follows:                                                                                                     
                     15.   A process of using a cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase, comprising                              
                     (a) treating a liquefied starch solution with the cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase at a              
              temperature above 70EC and a pH in the range of 5.0-6.0; and                                                 
                     (b) recovering a cyclodextrin;                                                                        
              wherein the cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase used in the treatment is derived from a strain                 
              of Clostridium and has a pH optimum of about 5.0 and a temperature optimum in the range                      
              of 80-85EC.                                                                                                  
                     17.  A process according to claim 16, wherein the liquefied starch solution is                        
              treated with the cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase at a temperature above 85EC.                              

                     The prior art reference relied on by the examiner is:                                                 
              Japanese Unexamined Patent Application             52-25043             Feb. 24, 1977                        
              (Assignee Japan Maize Products Co. Ltd.)(Maize)                                                              
                     The issues presented for review are:                                                                  
                     (1) Whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 15, 16 and 18 through 22 under                     
              35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maize; and                                                              
                     (2) Whether the examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                     
              paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure.                                                            
                     On consideration of the record, we reverse both of the examiner's rejections.                         

                                                            2                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007