Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
With respect to the second ground of rejection, Appellants contend
Perkins 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 used 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. Appellants contend they
“have shown in the specification that synergy results from [the] combination
of lipase, lipoxygenase and bleaching catalyst,” and it is unreasonable to
require a showing “that all bleaching catalysts result in improved bleaching
in the inventive system.” Id.
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 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. 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
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013