Appeal No. 1998-1720
Application No. 08/384,239
Rejection II
Claims 5 through 8, 10 and 11 are directed to methods of treating leather with the
preparation of claim 9. In addition to the references cited in the rejection discussed above,
the examiner relies on Grimm I, Grimm II and Grimm III to establish that soaking and bating
hides in a proteolytic solution was known in the art at the time of the invention.
Nevertheless, the additional references do nothing to remedy the underlying deficiency in
the examiner’s proposed combination of Thomas, Geyer, Töpfer, Green, Borello and Tang.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5 through 8, 10 and 11 as unpatentable over
Thomas, Geyer, Töpfer, Green, Borello, Tang, Grimm I, Grimm II and Grimm III is reversed
as well.
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
3(...continued)
established, we do not find it necessary to comment on appellants’ arguments at pages 6-
8 of the Brief regarding unexpected results attributable to the present invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007