Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
The obviousness rejections of claim 10 based on Spina in view
of Matsunaga, claims 12 and 15 based on Spina in view of
Dieras, and claims 3-7 based on Masterson “in view of
applicant[s’] disclosure”
With respect to claim 10, we have carefully considered the
teachings of Matsunaga as it relates to Spina. For the reasons
set forth above in our discussion of the rejection of claim
1 based on Spina, we do not consider that Matsunaga would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to preheat the enzyme
solution of Spina. Therefore, the rejection of claim 10 further
in view of Matsunaga will not be sustained.
Concerning claims 12 and 15, we have also considered the
teachings of Dieras as they relate to Spina, but conclude that
they are not sufficient to make up for the deficiencies of Spina
previously noted. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 12 and
15 also is not sustainable.
Finally, the additional teachings of the prior art patents
mentioned on page 2 of appellants’ specification do not make up
for the deficiencies of Masterson. The rejection of claims 3-7
therefore will not be sustained.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007