Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
prior art suggests the desirability of the modification (Br. 21). Appellants
contend that Severson, Jr. fails to provide any suggestion “to make the
selection [of an amylase enzyme (i.e., excluding Termamyl)] necessary to
result in the claimed composition and processes” (Br. 21).
The Examiner responds that, while Severson, Jr.’s Example I is silent
regarding the source of the amylase enzyme, he does disclose that suitable
amylase enzymes include RAPIDASE® or TERMAMYL® (Answer 6-7).
Therefore, according to the Examiner, Severson, Jr.’s disclosure “does not
require Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme” (Answer 7). Based on these
findings the Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would
“formulate a composition encompassing the limitation wherein the enzyme
does not comprise TERMAMYL as recited in the instant claims” (Answer
7).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that the
claims are unpatentable over Severson, Jr.
In Example I, Severson, Jr. discloses liquid detergent compositions D
and E include boric acid, 1,2 propanediol, amylase enzyme, and water in
weight percentages that fall within those recited in claims 1, 8 and 13.
Compositions D and E are silent regarding the particular amylase enzyme
used. However, Severson, Jr. discloses that either “‘Rapidase’” or
“‘Termamyl’” may be used as the amylase enzyme (Severson, Jr. col. 7,
ll. 47-50). Severson, Jr.’s amylase enzyme disclosure provides motivation
for and thus renders obvious using either “‘Rapidase’” or “‘Termamyl’” as
the amylase enzyme in the compositions of Example I. Merck v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013