Appeal No. 2001-0355
Application No. 08/750,069
Procedure (MPEP) chapter 2400 generally and sections 2411, 2411.01 specifically
(August 2001). On the record before us, the appellants have not disagreed with the
examiner’s determination. Instead, the appellants have simply stated that “the strains
VTT-E-94549, VTT-E-94559 and VTT-E-85235 have been deposited with the depository
of VTT and they could be transferred to an IDA [i.e., International Depository Authority],
if that becomes necessary”. This statement does not satisfy the requirements of 37
CFR 1.809 (b)(1), and therefore the § 112 rejection must be maintained as proper.
See, for example MPEP section 2411.02.
In light of the foregoing, we hereby sustain the examiner’s § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of all the appealed claims.
The § 103 rejections
The pivotal consideration for each of the examiner’s § 103 rejection is whether
the enzyme preparations used for treating lignocellulosic material in the Pedersen
reference and in the admitted prior art possess hexenuronidase activity, at least
inherently, such that at least a part of the hexenuronic acid groups of the lignocellulosic
material is selectively removed. According to the appellants, the declaration of record
filed February 25, 2000 under 37 CFR § 1.132 evinces that these prior art enzymes “do
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007