Appeal No. 1998-1720
Application No. 08/384,239
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Thomas, Geyer, Töpfer, Green, Borello and Tang.
II. Claims 5 through 8, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Thomas, Geyer, Töpfer, Green, Borello, Tang, Grimm I, Grimm II and
Grimm III.
For the reasons set forth in the body of this opinion, we reverse both rejections.
BACKGROUND
According to the specification “[t]he use of proteolytic enzymes is an established
part of leather manufacture” (page 6) and “[t]he present invention pertains to solid enzyme
preparations, free of surface active agents, containing proteases, obtained by tannin[]
precipitation . . . and to methods for the soaking [and] bating . . . of hides” (page 1). “The
technique of tannin precipitation has been known . . . for the isolation of enzymes from
solutions.” During the precipitation process, tannin forms an insoluble complex with the
enzyme, and must be removed in order to release the active enzyme, usually “by treating
the precipitate with organic solvents, e.g. with acetone or ethanol, or by the addition of
1(...continued)
appears from the record before us that the examiner relied on the translations in the
Information Disclosure Statement in rejecting the claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007