Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
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. Spada, 911 F.2d at 708,
15 USPQ2d at 1657.
For the above reasons, we affirm the § 103(a) rejection of argued
claim 1 and non-argued claims 2-4, and 7.
CLAIM 8
Claim 8 is directed to a process of stabilizing an amylase enzyme in
an aqueous enzymatic liquid or gel detergent composition. The claimed
process includes providing an enzyme stabilizing combination having the
same composition claimed in claim 1 and mixing the enzyme stabilizing
combination with liquid detergent ingredients.
Claim 8 is rejected under 103(a) over Panandiker.
Appellants argue that Pananadiker does not teach a process wherein
“the oxygen bleach resistant α-amylase enzyme which is stabilized does not
comprise Termamyl alpha amylase enzyme” (Br. 18). Appellants argue that
Panandiker indicates a preference for using TERMAMYL® (Br. 18).
Moreover, Appellants proffer the same evidence noted above regarding the
unexpectedly better enzyme stability achieved with their detergent
composition (Br. 18).
The Examiner responds in the same manner with regard to
Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1. Namely, that Panandiker
indicates that any one of the disclosed amylase enzymes (i.e.,
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013