Appeal No. 2002-1479 Page 8
Application No. 08/794,042
Although the examiner correctly notes that the enzyme preparation of both
the prior art and the specification ultimately are derived from a bovine source,
that fact alone does not necessarily mean that both preparations contain the
identical enzyme. In particular, the record contains no evidence regarding how
the commercial preparation of enterokinase was purified, thus indicating a
potential explanation for the apparent differences between the prior art and
claimed enzymes.
Thus, the evidence of record shows that the claimed enzyme differs from
the prior art enzyme in a number of properties, including molecular weight,
number of amino acids, and amino acid composition. In view of these differences,
we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support a prima facie case of
anticipation by inherency and we therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG/dym
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007