Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
1% to about 15% by weight” for the polyol concentration would have
suggested the claimed concentration of “about 1% by weight” of the
polyhydroxy compound.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 is affirmed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER PANANDIKER
Appellants separately argue claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 13. We address
these claims in our decision below.
CLAIM 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-13 under § 103(a) over
Panandiker. The Examiner indicated that Panandiker discloses all the
features of claim 1, except for the “source of the amylase enzyme used in
[Panandiker’s] example I” (i.e., that the amylase used in Example I is not
Termamyl) (Non-Final Office Action 6, mailed April 16, 2004). The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to formulate a liquid detergent composition that does not include
Termamyl because “Panandiker . . . teach the equivalence of Termamyl
amylase with other alpha and beta amylases and . . . that various alpha and
beta amylases can be utilized in the liquid detergent composition for removal
of carbohydrate based stains” (Non-Final Office Action 6, mailed April 16,
2004).
Appellants argue that Panandiker does not teach that the alpha
amylase enzyme does not comprise Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme (Br.
14). Rather, Appellants contend, Panandiker indicates that Termamyl is
“one of the preferred commercially available amylases” (Br. 14). Appellants
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013