Appeal No. 2006-0201 Page 7
Application No. 10/125,272
[Yamada] teaches that trehalose and zinc sulfate are both good enzyme stabilizers.”
Id., page 6.
Appellants argue that “as . . . discussed above, the De[ ]Lima and [Yamada]
processes are quite different from Appellants’ process. The granules are formed in
De[ ]Lima by spraying and mixing an aqueous enzyme onto a preformed core. The
granules are formed in [Yamada] by mixing a disaccharide and an enzyme and spray
drying.” Appeal Brief, page 13.
We agree with Appellants that Yamada does not remedy the deficiency of De
Lima. Specifically, the examiner has not adequately explained why Yamada’s
disclosure – stabilizing an enzyme by mixing it with a disaccharide before spray-drying –
would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Lima’s disclosed
process – coating pre-formed cores with an enzyme-containing liquid – in such a way as
to result in the process defined by claim 1.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.” In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because the
examiner has not adequately explained why the cited references would have suggested
the process of claim 1 to a person of ordinary skill in the art, he has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007