Appeal No. 2006-0201 Page 5
Application No. 10/125,272
preferably have relatively high physical strength. . . . In contrast, Appellants’ solid carrier
is a ‘powder which can be compacted into a granule.’” Id.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). See also Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460, 43 USPQ2d 1030,
1035 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]o hold that a prior art reference anticipates a claim, the Board
must expressly find that every limitation in the claim was identically shown in the single
reference.”).
In this case, the claims require mixing an enzyme with “a powder which can be
compacted into a granule,” and mechanically processing the mixture to obtain granules.
The process described by De Lima, on the other hand, begins with “absorbent cores”
and then contacts them with an enzyme-containing liquid. See, e.g., column 2, lines 22-
29: “a process for producing enzyme-containing granules from absorbent cores, the
process comprising: (a) contacting absorbent cores . . . with a liquid medium containing
an enzyme in dissolved and/or dispersed form.” The disclosed process therefore does
not involve mixing an enzyme with a solid carrier as defined in the instant specification –
“a powder which can be compacted into a granule” – and processing to produce
granules.
The examiner responded to Appellants’ argument by pointing to De Lima’s
working examples: “De Lima very clearly teaches that the compositions are formulated
as granulates not starting with a granulate. Appellant does the same thing as De Lima,
appellant also formulates a granulate by mixing the enzyme, carrier, water and an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007