Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
(explaining that the disclosure of a multitude of effective combinations does
not render any particular formulation less obvious).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to use
“‘Rapidase’” as the amylase enzyme in the liquid detergent compositions
exemplified by Severson, Jr. in Example I, particularly compositions D or E.
The resulting compositions (and the process of making them) would satisfy
each limitation of claims 1, 8 and 13.
Appellants’ assertion of unexpected results is unpersuasive for two
reasons.
First, the Appellants’ claimed invention is not compared to the closest
prior art. Rather, Appellants’ Table 1 on page 5 of their Specification
compares their preferred, though not claimed, alpha amylase enzyme (i.e.,
“Duramyl”) with a detergent composition having the alpha amylase enzyme
(i.e., “Termamyl”) expressly excluded by the language of the claims. The
required comparison should have been between a composition using
“‘Rapidase,’” the non-TERMAMYL® alpha amylase enzyme, disclosed by
Severson, Jr., and a TERMAMYL® containing detergent composition.
Second, the evidence of unexpected results is not commensurate in
scope with the claims such evidence is meant to support. Appellants’
evidence of unexpected results consists of a comparison of a detergent
composition made using “Termamyl” with a detergent composition made
using “Duramyl.” However, Appellants’ claims do not require that
“Duramyl” be used as the alpha amylase enzyme. Moreover, Appellants’
compositions allegedly showing unexpected results include non-enzyme
ingredients (e.g., K2SO4, polyacrylate thickener, Protease (4% active),
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013