Appeal No. 2005-1104
Application No. 09/795,211
and evidence, we affirm both rejections on appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over B-F ‘562
The examiner finds that B-F ‘562 teaches variants of a parent
"-amylase within the scope of the claimed "-amylase enzyme (Answer,
page 3). The examiner also finds that B-F ‘562 teaches liquid
detergent compositions containing up to 70% water, and that liquid
enzyme preparations may be stabilized by adding a polyol such as
propylene glycol, a sugar or sugar alcohol, lactic acid or boric
acid (Answer, page 4). The examiner further finds that example 9
of B-F ‘562 discloses a thixotropic liquid automatic dishwashing
composition comprising 0-4.0% boric acid, 0-0.2% calcium formate,
0-9.4% 1,2-propanediol, 0.0001-0.1% enzyme, with the balance water
(id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention to formulate a detergent composition
comprising the ingredients boric acid, 1,2-propanediol, calcium
ion, water, protease and "-amylase (Answer, page 5). We agree.
Appellants argue that B-F ‘562 broadly discloses various
detergent compositions, but has no specific teaching relating to
the claimed composition and process (Brief, page 12). Appellants
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007