Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
absence of a lipoxidase enzyme, the latter disclosed by Baeck. Id. 6. The
Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in this art would have used
Baeck’s lipoxidase enzyme in Perkins’ compositions with a reasonable
expectation of success because the lipoxidase enzyme is taught to remove
stains, including carotenoid soils, wherein the proportions of the ingredients
are as claimed. Id. 6-7.
With respect to the first ground of rejection, Appellants contend
Baeck does not disclose, among other things, “ligands/transition metal
catalysts capable of enhancing bleaching” and an oxidizable precursor such
as linoleates. Appellants contend Hermant does not disclose, among other
things, “an oxidizable precursor present such as linoleic acid or salt thereof,”
“an oxidizing enzyme such as lipoxygenase;” or “that the transition metal
catalyst performance could . . . be enhanced by the presence of an oxidizable
precursor and an oxidizing enzyme (e.g. linoleates and lipoxygenases)” in a
composition. Br. 10-11; see also 12. Appellants contend one of ordinary
skill in the art would be led away from the combination of lipoxygenases
with bleaching catalysts because there would be no incentive to combine
ingredients that do the same thing. Id. 11-12. Appellants further contend
the “transition metal catalyst can synergistically interact with lipoxygenases
to provide improved results . . . in the presence specifically of linoleic acid
or salts thereof.” Id. 12. Appellants rely on “[c]omparative experiments . . .
reported at [Specification] pages 23-24,” wherein “[o]f particular
effectiveness are Experiments 1 and 1A,” and “good results were also
achieved in Experiments 4 and 4A which are combinations of lipoxygenase
and a transition metal catalyst.” Id.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013