Appeal No. 1997-0467
Application 08/318,019
DISCUSSION
In resolving questions of obviousness, a decision-maker must consider the claimed
subject matter as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103. Here, independent claim 15 recites a
process of treating a liquefied starch solution with cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase
“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.” Further, according to claim 15, the treating step is carried out “at a
temperature above 70EC.” Manifestly, the Maize reference relied on by the examiner
constitutes insufficient evidence to support a conclusion of obviousness of claims
containing those limitations.
The Maize disclosure, like applicant's specification, relates to a process for
enzymatically converting a liquefied starch solution to cyclodextrin using cyclodextrin
glycosyl transferase. Maize, however, discloses cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase
produced by Bacillus unlike applicant's cyclodextrin glycosyl transferase “derived from a
strain of Clostridium” having “a pH optimum of about 5.0 and a temperature optimum in the
range of 80-85EC.” See the Maize reference (English translation), page 1, second and
third paragraphs; paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3; and page 4, third full paragraph.
Further, Maize discloses that cyclodextrinization “is carried out at 30-65EC” (page 3, fourth
full paragraph) whereas claim 15 requires “a temperature above 70EC.” On this record,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007