Appeal No. 2001-0355
Application No. 08/750,069
quantities is effected by the prior art enzyme. On the other hand, the record before us
provides no way knowing whether the attorney argument concerning this reduction does
or does not accurately represent the analysis and explanation of the declaration data by
one with an ordinary level of skill in the art. Viewed from this perspective, we consider
the argument and evidence of record, on balance, to weigh most heavily in favor of
supporting the examiner’s position that the reduction in question reflects
hexenuronidase activity by the prior art enzyme.
For the above-stated reasons, it our determination that the enzyme preparations
used in the Pedersen reference and in the admitted prior art satisfy the hexenuronidase
activity required by the independent claims on appeal. We shall sustain, therefore, the
examiner’s § 103 rejections of all the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Pedersen in view of Puls with or without Pulpzyme HA™ and as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art.
SUMMARY
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007