Appeal No. 2006-0650 Page 12
Application No. 10/007,613
proteolytic enzyme composition and (2) method groups, Appellant morphed original
claim 39, which was directed to a proteolytic enzyme composition, into a “system” claim
for disinfecting articles susceptible to prion contamination. In addition to the presence
of the enzyme, the claim was amended to include: “articles” (e.g., instruments to be
sterilized); “means for heating” articles, and “means for exposing said articles to
proteolytic enzymes.” Amendment filed 9/23/2003. Later, in response to prior art
rejections, Appellant added the “wherein clause,” stating that it expressly characterized
the recited articles by requiring “two distinctive physical states [temperature] at two
different durations.” Amendment filed 4/16/2004, page 21. Basically, Appellant was
amending the composition claim to include the restricted method limitations, i.e., heating
articles to a temperature that causes the prion to become susceptible to proteolytic
digestion, followed by contacting with a proteolytic enzyme under suitable temperature
conditions to digest the prion protein.
As we understand it, Appellant is claiming the system as it performs a
disinfection process, where the articles are first held at about 40-150°C to make the
prion susceptible to proteolysis, and then at about 50-65°C for digestion (“exposure”) by
a proteolytic enzyme. (Claim 71 recites different ranges, but the concept is the same.)
This is consistent with the statement in the application that the invention includes a two-
step sequence involving two temperature exposures. Specification, page 10. Although
the claims recite temperature ranges, we understand this to mean that the article is
brought to a temperature within the range, and that it may also pass through other
temperatures within the recited range.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007