Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
CaCl2.2H2O, non-ionic surfactant, dye, and perfume), and concentrations of
these various non-enzyme ingredients, that are not recited in the claims.
We also note that Appellants appear to be merely claiming an alpha
amylase liquid detergent composition and a process of making the detergent
composition, which Severson, Jr. demonstrated were previously known, but
which Appellants characterize as having a newly discovered property (i.e.,
enhanced alpha amylase enzyme stability). It has been held that the
discovery of a new property of a previously known composition, even when
that property and use are unobvious from the prior art, cannot impart
patentability to claims to the known composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the above reasons, we affirm the § 103(a) rejection of argued
claims 1, 8, and 13, and non-argued claims 2-4, 7, and 9-12.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends on claim 13 and further narrows the amount of the
polyhydroxy compound present in the detergent composition to an amount
from “about 0.1 to about 1% by weight of the polyhydroxy compound.”
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under § 103(a) over Severson, Jr.
(Answer 3).
Appellants make the same arguments regarding claim 6 as were made
previously with respect to independent claim 13. Appellants add that
Severson, Jr. fails to teach a detergent composition having one of the
polyhydroxy compounds recited in claim 6 present in an amount of “about
0.1 to 1% by weight” (Br. 21-22). Appellants further contend that Severson,
Jr. would not have suggested modifying the detergent compositions to
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013