Appeal No. 2004-1935 Page 9
Application No. 09/308,403
These arguments are not persuasive. Claim 36 stands or falls with claim 1, so
we find it unnecessary to separately consider whether the references would have
suggested all of its limitations. Appellant’s “negative feedback loop” argument is
unpersuasive because that aspect of the disclosed method is inherent to any method
that relies on enzymatic generation of hydrogen peroxide. See, e.g., the specification at
page 8.
Other Issues
If these claims come before the examiner again, they should be carefully
evaluated for compliance with the second and fourth paragraphs of § 112. For
example, claims 21 and 49 appear to be exactly the same. Also, the “redox enzymes”
recited in claim 18 appear to lack antecedent basis, as do the “dehydrated gel or
viscous medium” recited in claim 15 and the “material, gel, viscous medium, [etc.]”
recited in claim 24. Finally, claims 25, 47, and 50 do not appear to limit the claims from
which they depend, since intended uses do not further limit the claimed subject matter.
Summary
The references cited by the examiner would have suggested the composition of
claim 1 and the method of claim 17 to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17 is affirmed. Claims 2, 3, 7-16, 18-26, and 28-59
fall with claims 1 and 17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007