Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
TERMAMYL®, FUNGAMYL® or BAN®) may be used as the amylase
enzyme in the composition.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that the
claims are unpatentable over Panandiker.
Appellants arguments directed to Panandiker’s choice of
TERMAMYL® as the preferred amylase enzyme and Appellants’ allegation
of unexpected results are unpersuasive for the same reasons previously
discussed. See our discussion of Panandiker in the CLAIM 1 section of this
opinion. We further note that Panandiker teaches a process of mixing
together the components making up the claimed amylase enzyme stabilizing
composition along with other liquid detergent composition materials (see
Panandiker, Example I).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of argued claim 8 and non-argued
claims 9 and 11-12 over Panandiker.
CLAIMS 6, 10 AND 13
Independent claim 13 recites the same features as claim 1, except that
the “polyhydroxy compound” amount has the narrower range of “about 0.1
to about 5% by weight.” Claim 6 depends from claim 13 and further
narrows the “polyhydroxy compound” amount to “about 0.1% to about 1%
by weight.”
Claim 10 depends from process claim 8. Claim 10 narrows the boric
acid amount to be from “1% to 5%”; the polyhydroxy compound to from
“0.1% to 7%”; and the oxygen bleach resistant α-amylase enzyme to be from
“0.1% to 2%” in the enzyme stabilizing composition of claim 8.
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013