Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
Examples 4 and 4a are based on the combination of the same Lipoxygenase,
and transition metal catalyst as in Examples 1 and 1a. Specification 23-24.
We find no statement evaluating the results in the Specification.
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 1, 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, 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. Accordingly,
this person would arrive at the claimed compositions encompassed by claim
1, 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 Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015-
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013