Appeal 2007-0212
Application 10/446,483
Vaisanen simply provides additional motivation for one of ordinary
skill in the art to include the claimed oxidoreductase enzyme in the packaged
dough of Narayanaswamy, namely, for improving the rheological properties
of the dough. As noted by the Examiner, one cannot obtain patent protection
merely by discovering another advantage of doing what is taught by the
prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). Of
course, as explained above, Lehtonen teaches the advantage disclosed by
Appellants of adding an oxidoreductase enzyme to a dough-based product.
As for separately argued claims 2, 15 and 16, we agree with the
Examiner's reasoning set forth at pages 13-16 of the Answer.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007