Appeal No. 2000-0893 Page 13
Application No. 08/392,407
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph:
The examiner finds (Answer, page 6) “[t]he instant claims are indefinite
and confusing in the recitation of ‘which corresponds to activities exhibited by a
protease selected from, the group consisting of: an esterase, an amidase, an
acetal hydrolase and a glycosidase’ ….” According to the examiner (Answer,
pages 6-7):
Proteases do not consist of any of the recited enzymes, rather
proteases are enzymes specific for the cleavage of peptide bonds
whereas esterases cleave esters, amidases cleave amides, acetal
hydrolases cleave acetal groups and glycosidases cleave glycosyl
compounds. All of the recited enzymes are hydrolases and if ‘a
protease’ was [sic] changed to ‘a hydrolase’ or ‘an enzyme’ then
this rejection would be dropped.
We find no error in the examiner’s position. In addition, appellants
concede to the examiner’s position, stating (Reply Brief, page 14) that
“[a]ppellants thank the [e]xaminer for his helpful suggestion and agree to such an
amendment pending the outcome of this appeal.” Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007