Ex Parte Streekstra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201613159137 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/159,137 06/13/2011 Hugo STREEKSTRA 2919208-040001 1855 84331 7590 MMWV IP, LLC 510 S MARKET ST FREDERICK, MD 21701 12/20/2016 EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1791 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing @ mm w vlaw .com cgmoore @ mmwvlaw. com dwoodward @ mmwvlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUGO STREEKSTRA and LUPPO EDENS Appeal 2015-001105 Application 13/159,137 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13, 15—17, and 19—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over at least Zyzak (US 2004/0101607 Al).2 The claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement over the full scope of the claimed subject matter. An oral hearing was conducted on December 9, 2016. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is stated to be DSM IP ASSETS B.V. (Br. 4). 2 The Examiner applies additional prior art to dependent claims 6—9, 13 and 21—26 (see e.g., Ans. 6, 7; see also Br. 1 for a full listing of the rejections). Appeal 2015-001105 Application 13/159,137 Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to highlight key limitation in dispute): 1. A process for the production of a food or feed product comprising: adding an enzyme to the surface of an intermediate form of the food or feed product, and heating at least a part of the intermediate food or feed product to a temperature of 100 °C or higher, wherein the enzyme is capable of modifying side chains of the amino acid asparagine or glutamine present in the intermediate form of the food or feed product and which amino acid is involved in the formation of acrylamide in absence of the enzyme during the heating of the intermediate food or feed product, wherein the enzyme is reacted with the surface of the food or feed product for a sufficient time that at least 50% of asparagine or glutamine present in the intermediate form of the food or feed product is retained in the food or feed product after performing the method. ANALYSIS The §112 lack of enablement rejection As explained in LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, PTY, Inc.: A claim will not be invalidated on section 112 grounds simply because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language. That is because the patent specification is written for a person of skill in the art, and such a person comes to the patent with the knowledge of what has come before. Placed in that context, it is unnecessary to spell out every detail of the invention in the specification; only enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed 2 Appeal 2015-001105 Application 13/159,137 the invention and to enable such a person to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation