Appeal 2007-1396
Application 10/375,235
With respect to the second ground of rejection, Appellants contend
Perkins does disclose air mode transition metal catalysts, but does not
disclose an enzyme for oxidizing an oxidizable precursor and does not
disclose linoleic acid or salts thereof. Appellants contend there is no
advantage to use Baeck’s lipoxygenase with Perkins’ transition metal
catalyst. Br. 13. Appellants rely on the “comparative experiments” at
Specification pages 23-24 and particularly Examples 1 and 1a which “reflect
activity of a combination of lipase, lipoxygenase and bleaching catalyst,” in
which “[s]tain removing results are quite exceptional relative to other
experiments operating with only one or even two of the aforementioned
materials of the claimed bleaching system.” Id. 14.
With respect to the first ground of rejection, the Examiner responds
that motivation to use a catalyst in Baeck’s compositions is found in
Hermant’s teaching that a catalyst can be used in similar compositions and
provides stain removal and dye transfer inhibition. Answer 3-4. The
Examiner contends the lipases taught by Baeck “would form linoleic acid or
a metal salt thereof when placed in an aqueous solution for cleaning textiles
stained with various fatty stains as suggested by” Baeck. Id. 4. The
Examiner contends the combination of references does not have to disclose
the advantage or results discovered by Appellants, and Baeck and Hermant
teach lipoxidases and transition metal catalysts are used in similar
compositions which would lead to the combination of the two compositions
into a third composition, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,
205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Answer 4-5.
With respect to the second ground of rejection, the Examiner responds
the motivation to add Baeck’s lipoxidase to Perkins’ catalyst containing
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013