Appeal No. 1999-1981
Application No. 08/628,625
it would have been obvious to use raw starch, rather than
pretreated starch, i.e., liquefied or gelatinized starch, with
the claimed enzyme in the above-mentioned process. Compare
Brief, pages 3-5 and Reply Brief, page 1 with Answer in its
entirety. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the
examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
As a final point, we note that appellants refer to EP
350737 at page 2 of the specification. EP 350737 is said to
describe an enzymatic reaction involving the conversion of raw
starch to maltose and maltotriose. Upon return of this
application, the examiner is to obtain EP 350737 and review it
to determine whether it, together with any or all of the
above-mentioned prior art references, affects the
patentability of the claimed subject matter.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007