Appeal No. 2006-0650 Page 10
Application No. 10/007,613
described by Huth as “suitable proteolytic enzymes” in for cleaning and disinfection.
Huth, column 15, lines 13-15.
We agree with the examiner that the skilled worker would have been motivated to
have utilized the particular keratinase disclosed in Shih in view of Huth’s suggestion that
this class of enzymes is useful for disinfection purposes and the skilled worker’s
reasonable expectation that it would have similar properties as being a member of the
same enzyme class. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901,
1904. Appellant did not separately argue this limitation, and there was no evidence of
record that one type of keratinase is any better than another.
New Grounds of Rejection
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the following new grounds
of rejection.
Indefiniteness, 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 39-51, 53-55, 63, 71, 73, 74, and 80 are rejected under § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
The independent claims are reproduced below:
39. A system comprising:
(a) one or more articles susceptible to contamination by infectious prion
protein;
(b) means for heating said articles;
(c) a proteolytic enzyme selected from the group consisting of keratinases
and subtilisins; and
(d) means for exposing said articles to said proteolytic enzyme;
wherein said one or more articles are characterized by a first elevated
temperature of at least 40°C and not more than 150°C during a first
duration, wherein said articles are characterized by a second elevated
3 Shih et al. (Shih), U.S. Pat. No. 5,171,682, issued Dec. 15, 1992.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007