Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
the Reply Brief, and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition
thereof.
OPINION
As a claim interpretation matter, we note that Appellants’ claims
recite the phrase “. . . Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme.” We further note
that Appellants argued in their Amendment filed July 19, 2004 that
TERMAMYL®, as evinced by the incorporation by reference of
WO 95/10603, is well defined in the art (Amendment 7, filed July 19, 2004).
Therefore, in accordance with Appellants’ incorporation by reference and
the prosecution history of this application, we interpret the claim phrase “. . .
Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme” as having the TERMAMYL® sequence
ID disclosed as “SEQ ID No. 2” on page 13, lines 2-3 in WO 95/10603. In
this opinion, we use “Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme” and
“TERMAMYL®” (and variations thereof) synonymously as referring to this
sequence.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER SEVERSON, JR.
With regard to the Severson, Jr. rejection, Appellants separately argue
claims 1, 6, 8, and 13. Accordingly, we address those claims in our decision
below.
CLAIMS 1, 8, AND 13
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-13 under § 103(a) over
Severson, Jr. The Examiner stated that Severson, Jr. discloses all the
features of claim 1, except for the “source of the amylase enzyme” (Non-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013