Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
include the polyhydroxy compound content recited in claim 6 (Br. 22).
Appellants argue that Severson, Jr. does not teach or suggest that the
composition as defined by claim 6 provides improved stability to an
α-amylase enzyme which does not comprise Termamyl alpha amylase
enzyme (Br. 22).
The Examiner responds that Severson, Jr. discloses using
1,2 propanediol as the preferred enzyme stabilizer (Answer 7). The
Examiner further indicates that 1,2 propanediol may be present in an amount
from 1 to 15% by weight of the composition (Answer 7). The Examiner
concludes that, though in Severson, Jr.’s Example I, Compositions D and E
use “2.5 to 8 wt% 1,2 propanediol,” “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to modify the
amount of propanediol as recited in the instant claim 6, with a reasonable
expectation of success and similar results, because Severson, Jr. suggest[s]
the utility of polyols from about 1% to about 15% in general” (Answer 7).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that claim 6 is
unpatentable under § 103(a) over Severson, Jr.
Appellants’ claim 6 arguments which reiterate the claim 13 arguments
are unpersuasive as explained above. Regarding Appellants’ additional
arguments specific to claim 6, we find them unpersuasive for the reason
indicated below.
Severson, Jr. discloses that the weight percentage of a polyol (i.e.,
polyhydroxy compound) may vary from “about 1% to about 15% by weight
of the composition” (col. 8, ll. 38-40). Severson, Jr.’s disclosure of the
polyol amount applies to all the various formulations included in the patent.
Based on this disclosure, we conclude that Severson Jr.’s range of “about
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013