Appeal 2006-3259
Application 09/785,188
The method of claim 26 also includes a method in which substantially
all alcohol is removed from the sol prior to adding dispersant to cause
macropores to form. See, e.g., Spec. at 4, ll. 23-26 & FIG. 1.
The Prior Art Teachings
Uo describes the method of claim 26, except yeast spores rather than
the claimed “vegetative cells” are mixed into the sol because “the spores are
durable to organic solvents.” Uo at 427, ¶ 2.2. See also Answer 4-5. Uo
includes tetramethyoxysilane (TMOS), water, methanol and polyethylene
glycol (PEG) to form the sol. Uo at 426, col. 1; Answer 4.
Uo does not teach that using yeast cells in the disclosed method would
kill all activity of the cells but does imply the activity level would be less
than when spores are used. See id. ¶ 2.2 & passim; see also Answer 9.
Uo teaches that the pore diameter of the gel is a function of the PEG,
water and H2SO4 content and is silent on the impact of methanol. Uo at 427,
¶ 3. Thus, there is “inadequate evidence . . . that the methanol of Uo et al is
critical to obtaining macropores.” Answer 13.
Based on the teachings of Uo and Block (relied upon by Appellants),
one skilled in the art would have expected spores to be more stable in the
presence of alcohol than cells.
Hino describes the method of claim 26, except Hino (1) does not
expressly disclose the formation of macropores in the gel and (2)
immobilizes microbial cells instead of spores. Col. 1, ll. 36-37.
One of Hino’s objects is “immobilizing microbial cells while
maintaining at least more than 50% of the enzymatic activity which was
originally shown by the untreated microbial cells.” Col. 4, ll. 7-11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013