Appeal No. 2006-0650 Page 5
Application No. 10/007,613
The claims also refer to an article “susceptible to contamination by infectious
prion protein.” The ordinary meaning of the term “susceptible” is “capable of submitting
to an action, process, or operation.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976. This
does not describe a physical limitation to the claim, only a potential act (“contamination”)
that may occur. Thus, we do not construe the claim to require the presence of prion
protein.
2. Obviousness
Claims 39-51, 53-56, 63, 71 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Huth1. It is noted that additional references were relied upon in the
Answer. Page 3, § 8; page 4. Although we considered these references, we found
Huth to be sufficient to sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 56.
Huth is a disclosure of compositions and methods for cleaning and
decontaminating medical devices. Huth, Column 10, lines 31-65. It describes prior art
processes for cleaning and disinfecting instruments, e.g., utilizing enzyme solutions at
particular temperatures (Id., column 9, lines 19-30) and enzyme treatment followed by
disinfection (Id., column 12, lines 15-20). The patent describes its own method that
employs an enzyme solution with an oxidant (Id., column 10, lines 43-50) to clean and
decontaminate devices. The process can be carried out with different enzymes,
including thermostable enzymes (Id., column 14, lines 50-column 15, line 12) and at
various temperatures (Id., column 28, lines 14-48).
The examiner bears the initial burden of showing unpatentability. See, e.g.,
1 Huth et al. (Huth), U.S. Pat. No. 6,448,062, issued Sep. 10, 2002.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007