Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
contend that Panandiker teaches that Termamyl is “equivalent to other alpha
amylase enzymes and provide[s] no teaching or suggestion that
compositions containing the components required by the present claims
should exclude Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme” (Br. 15). Based on these
arguments, Appellants contend that since Panandiker fails to teach or
suggest every claim limitation (i.e., a liquid detergent not including
Termamyl), a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established (Br.
15).
Appellants reiterate their arguments and evidence regarding the
unexpected result of enhanced enzyme stability (made previously with
respect to the rejection over Severson, Jr.) against the Panandiker rejection.
For a complete exposition of Appellants arguments regarding the alleged
unexpected results see our discussion with regard to the Severson, Jr.
rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner responds that Panandiker discloses a liquid detergent
composition that is comprised of “0.1-2 % amylase selected from Termamyl
or Fungamyl or BAN” (Answer 5). Based on this finding, the Examiner
contends that Panandiker does not “require Termamyl alpha amylase
enzyme, hence providing one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a
composition encompassing the limitation wherein the enzyme does not
comprise TERMAMYL as recited by the instant claims” (Answer 5-6). The
Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to select from any one of the three alpha amylase enzymes taught
by the prior art (i.e., Termamyl, Fungamyl or BAN) (Answer 6).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013