Appeal No. 1999-1276 Page 6
Application No. 08/318,574
product during uricase oxidation (see column 3, lines 15-30). The Clements’ patents
also disclose using catalase and they disclose using catalase in combination with
organic peracids as the claimed method requires. However, the Clements’ patents
are not directed to quantitation methods but rather to washing and bleaching
compositions and, unlike the claimed method, the catalase is used to scavenge any
existing excess persalts that might interfere with the composition’s bleaching results
and not to remove hydrogen peroxide (see e.g., Clements ‘210, column 2, lines 57-
62). Accordingly, the references do disclose various elements of the claimed
method.4 However, there is no suggestion to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine these elements in the manner claimed. We fail to find, and Examiner has
not shown, anything in the references that would suggest modifying Johnson’s
idiometric method of quantitating organic peracids in order to replace the chemical
reagents used therein for removing hydrogen peroxide with the catalase used by
Heath, Bittner and the Clements’ patents and thereby derive the claimed invention.
We agree with appellants that “the Examiner ignored the fact that one of
ordinary skill in the art can not simply use catalase in decomposing a high
background of hydrogen peroxide in a method for quantitating the organic peracid
[as claimed] without the motivation or suggestion in the prior art to replace the
4 I.e., quantitating organic peracids in which hydrogen peroxide is removed (Johnson); removing
hydrogen peroxide with catalase (Heath); removing hydrogen peroxide, in the presence of other
peroxides (e.g., organic peracids) with catalase (Bittner); and, using catalase together with organic
peracids (the Clements’ patents).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007