Appeal 2007-1396
Application 10/375,235
We determine the combined teachings of Baeck and Hermant and of
Perkins and Baeck, the scope of which we determined above, provide
convincing evidence supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed
invention encompassed by claim 20, as we interpreted this claim above,
would have been prima facie obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the
bleaching arts familiar with bleaching compositions containing transition
metal catalysts and enzymes. We agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art routinely following the combined teachings of either
and both sets of applied references would have reasonably arrived at
compositions encompassing a transition metal catalyst which can function in
“air mode,” a lipoxidase, and a lipase, in the reasonable expectation of
combining the catalyst and lipoxidase which remove stains from carotenoid
chromophores and inhibit dye transfer, as taught by the references, in which
lipases would perform their known function of metabolizing triglycerides in
oily stains to the component polyunsaturated fatty acids as the Examiner
finds. Indeed, Baeck discloses compositions in the Examples which would
provide aqueous bleaching mediums that are substantially devoid of
peroxygen bleach or a peroxy-based or peroxyl-generating bleach system.
Accordingly, this person would arrive at the claimed compositions
encompassed by claim 20, including all of the limitations thereof, without
resort to Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-
88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d
1496, 1497-1500, 226 USPQ 1005, 1006-08 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Kerkhoven,
626 F.2d at 850, 205 USPQ at 1072, and case cited therein; In re Skoll,
523 F.2d 1392, 1397-98, 187 USPQ 481, 484-85 (CCPA 1975); In re
Castner, 518 F.2d 1234, 1238-39, 186 USPQ 213, 217 (CCPA 1975); In re
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013