Appeal No. 1999-2518
Application 08/722,213
The appellants argue that De Cupere does not disclose the
delayed enzyme release required by claim 1 and the delayed
organic peroxyacid bleach precursor release required by claim 20
(brief, pages 16-17). These release characteristics would have
been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by
Collier as discussed above. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of claims 17 and 22.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 11, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Collier is reversed. The rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of claims 11, 19 and 20 over Collier, claims 1-4,
12, 14-16, 18 and 21 over Collier in view of Panandiker,
claims 5-7, 9, 10, 23 and 25 over Collier in view of Panandiker
and Van Kralingen, claims 8, 13 and 24 over Collier in view of
Panandiker and Willey, and claims 17 and 22 over Collier in view
of Panandiker and De Cupere, are affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007