Appeal No. 2005-1104
Application No. 09/795,211
well as the amount of calcium ion present). Finally, appellants
must establish that the results truly are unexpected and not just a
difference in degree. See In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231
USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of appellants’
arguments and evidence, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of section 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the exmainer’s
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-10 and 12-16 which stand or fall
with claim 1, under section 103(a) over B-F ‘562.
B. The Rejection over B-F ‘562 in view of Markussen
The examiner relies on B-F ‘562 as discussed above and in the
Answer, further finding that B-F ‘562 does not specifically teach
the use of the Natalase® alpha-amylase as recited in claims 11 and
17 (Answer, page 5). Therefore the examiner applies Markussen for
its teaching of an improved enzyme-containing granule such as
Natalase® as a detergent additive (Answer, paragraph bridging pages
5-6). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007