Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
Final Office Action 7-8, mailed April 16, 2004). Specifically, the Examiner
stated that Severson, Jr. fails to “teach that the amylase does not comprise
TERMAMYL as recited in the instant claims” (Non-Final Office Action 8,
mailed April 16, 2004). However, the Examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to formulate a liquid
detergent composition comprising an alpha amylase enzyme that is not
TERMAMYL because Severson, Jr. teach[es] the equivalence of
TERMAMYL with other amylases” (Non-Final Office Action 8, mailed
April 16, 2004). As further motivation for the proposed selection of the
amylase enzyme, the Examiner found that Severson, Jr. teaches that “various
amylases can be utilized in the liquid detergent composition and furthermore
teaches a method to stabilize enzymes using boric acid and propylene
glycol” (Non-Final Office Action 8-9, mailed April 16, 2004).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 13, Appellants argue that Severson, Jr.
does not disclose excluding Termamyl from his detergent (Br. 20). Rather,
Appellants argue, Severson, Jr.’s disclosure of the “equivalence among
amylase enzymes provides no suggestion or motivation for improvement in
stability by excluding Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme” (Br. 20).
Appellants further argue that the unexpected result of improved enzyme
stability is clearly demonstrated by the data in Tables 1 and 2 on page 5 of
their Specification such that any prima facie case of obviousness established
by the Examiner has been “rebutted by evidence of unexpected results” (Br.
21).
Citing In re Mills, 16 USPQ2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Appellants
contend that simply because the prior art could be modified to arrive at the
claimed invention would not have made the modification obvious unless the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013