Appeal 2006-3259
Application 09/785,188
Appellants’ reasoning. Further, given that the skilled artisan can use
bacterial spores to practice the invention of claim 28, there’s even stronger
motivation to employ the teachings of Uo. See Answer 14. Appellants’
remaining arguments with respect to claim 28 mirror those made with
respect to claim 26 and have been addressed above.
Claim 15
The Examiner relies on Uo, Hino, Kline and Rao to reject claim 15
under § 103(a). Claim 15 is to a sol comprising P moles of a hydroxy
metallate, W moles of water, a dispersant, and a “biological material,” which
can be yeast spores, “wherein a ratio of W:P is greater than 25:1.” The
additional disputed limitation with respect to claim 15 is the W:P ratio.
Br. 15. The Examiner relies upon Klein, a reference that shows a sol
solution with a ratio of 32:1, and Rao, a reference that discloses “the
influence ratios of precursor, catalyst, solvent and water [have] on properties
of silica aerogels.” Answer 7-8, 16.
Appellants respond that a ratio of 32:1 in Klein yields 65% ethanol, an
amount Block shows is “effective at killing a number of bacterial species in
under one minute.” Br. 15-16 (emphasis Appellants’). The Examiner
responds that the “biological material” of claim 15 would include the
durable yeast spores taught by Uo. Answer 15. Further, according to the
Examiner, for the reasons given relating to claim 26, the skilled artisan
would have been motivated to reduce the alcohol level, if needed to preserve
the activity of the cells. Answer 16. Finally, Block does not disclose the
impact of alcohol on cells in a sol-gel process. Answer 11. Thus, the value
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013