NOVOZYMES A/S et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2020

2020000140 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2020)

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.
14/774,807 09/11/2015 Ole Simonsen 12649-US-PCT 3925
25908 7590 08/19/2020
NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC.
US PATENT DEPARTMENT
77 PERRYS CHAPEL CHURCH ROAD
PO BOX 576
FRANKLINTON, NC 27525-0576
EXAMINER
BOWERS, ERIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2020 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@novozymes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte OLE SIMONSEN and VICTOR CASELLA
__________

Appeal 2020-000140
Application 14/774,807
Technology Center 1600
__________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 0F1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 6, 15, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Novozymes A/S located in
Bagsvaerd, Denmark, Monosol LLC, located in Merrillville, Indiana, and
Novozymes North America, Inc., located in Franklinton, North Carolina, as
the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000140
Application 14/774,807

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The following rejections are before us for review:1F2
(1) Claims 5, 6, and 15, under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable
over Labeque 2F3 (Ans. 7–8); and
(2) Claims 5, 6, 15, and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Labeque and Mangin 3F4 (Ans. 9–10).
Appellant’s claim 5, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
representative and reads as follows:
5. A detergent pouch comprising a compartment formed by
an enzyme containing water-soluble film, and a detergent
containing a builder with a Ca2+ logarithmic stability constant
of above 4.5.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added to claimed feature at issue).
DISCUSSION
In rejecting claims 5, 6, and 15 over Labeque, the Examiner found
that Labeque suggests a detergent pouch having all of the features of the
pouch recited in the rejected claims. Ans. 7–8.
As to the recitation in Appellant’s claim 5, that the claimed pouch has
“a compartment formed by an enzyme containing water-soluble film”
(Appeal Br. 9), the Examiner determined that because Labeque discloses a
water-soluble film that encapsulates a liquid detergent that contains

2 The Examiner’s Answer included a provisional rejection for obviousness-
type double patenting over copending application 14/388,503 (“the ’503
application”). Ans. 3–6. The ’503 application has been abandoned,
however. See the ’503 application, Notice of Abandonment (entered March
5, 2020).
3 US 2012/0053107 A1 (published Mar. 1, 2012).
4 US 2003/0069155 A1 (published Apr. 10, 2003).
Appeal 2020-000140
Application 14/774,807

3
enzymes, “the enzyme[s] in the pouch made by the film would be in contact
with the film, and so the film can be interpreted as ‘enzyme-containing’
because it is in physical contact with an enzyme.” Ans. 7–8; see also id. at
12 (asserting that “the term ‘a compartment formed by an enzyme containing
. . . film’ can reasonably be interpreted even more broadly as a compartment
formed out of a film in which an enzyme solution is stored”).
Appellant contends that, “[c]ontrary to the position of the Office, the
claimed element ‘compartment formed by an enzyme containing water-
soluble film’ requires that the enzyme be incorporated into the water-soluble
film.” Appeal Br. 4; see also id. at 5–7 (contending that the Specification
consistently describes enzymes as being incorporated into water-soluble
film).
We find that Appellant has the better position.
We acknowledge that “the distinction between using the specification
to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the
specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Ultimately, nonetheless, while the PTO is “required to give all claims
their broadest reasonable construction, . . . any such construction [must] be
consistent with the specification, and th[e] claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citation omitted). “Indeed, the specification is always highly relevant
to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. (internal quotes and
citations omitted).
Appeal 2020-000140
Application 14/774,807

4
In the present case, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “a compartment formed by an enzyme containing water-
soluble film” (Appeal Br. 9) is not consistent the Specification.
The Specification explains that Appellant’s invention addresses “the
challenge of formulating detergents, because several incompatibilities
between enzymes and detergent ingredients exist.” Spec. 1.
To address that challenge, “the invention provides a detergent pouch
comprising a compartment formed by an enzyme containing water-soluble
film, and an enzyme containing detergent, wherein the enzyme in the film is
different from the enzyme in the detergent. In an embodiment, the enzyme in
the film is protease.” Spec. 3 (emphasis added).
Thus, in the same sentence that uses the claim language at issue to
describe Appellant’s invention (“a compartment formed by an enzyme
containing water-soluble film”), the Specification distinguishes between an
“enzyme in the film” and an “enzyme in the detergent.” Spec. 3 (emphasis
added). We are not persuaded, therefore, that the Examiner is consistent
with the Specification in interpreting the language at issue in claim 5 as
encompassing an enzyme in a detergent, merely because the enzyme in the
detergent can come into physical contact with the film.
Indeed, consistent with Appellant’s contention that claim 5’s
recitation of “a compartment formed by an enzyme containing water-soluble
film” (Appeal Br. 9) means that an enzyme is incorporated into the film
itself, the Specification repeatedly describes Appellant’s invention as
involving inclusion of an enzyme in the film:
By placing some (or all) of the enzyme in one or more of
the ingoing water-soluble films, several degrees of freedom for
formulating the unit dose can be obtained. One option is to
Appeal 2020-000140
Application 14/774,807

5
separate protease enzyme from non-protease enzyme, by having
one enzyme in the pouch and the other in the film, or by having
them in two separate films.
Spec. 3 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7 (listing different enzymes that
may be “comprised in the enzyme containing water-soluble film of the
invention” (emphasis added); id. at 24 (“The detergent composition may
comprise one or more (other) enzymes, in addition to the enzymes
comprised in the water-soluble films.”).
Given the above disclosures in the Specification, Appellant persuades
us that the Examiner’s interpretation of “a compartment formed by an
enzyme containing water-soluble film” (Appeal Br. 9 (claim 5)) is not
consistent with the Specification. Indeed, given the cited disclosures in the
Specification, we agree with Appellant that, when given its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, claim 5 requires
an enzyme to be incorporated into the water-soluble film itself.
The Examiner does not dispute that Labeque does not describe or
teach a detergent pouch that has a compartment formed by a water-soluble
film, in which an enzyme is incorporated into the film. See Ans. generally.
Nor does the Examiner explain why Labeque would have suggested
incorporating an enzyme into a water-soluble film used to form a detergent
pouch. See id. Because the Examiner does not persuade us, therefore, that
Labeque teaches or suggests a detergent pouch having all of the features
required by Appellant’s claim 5, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 5, and its dependent claims 6 and 15, over Labeque.
In rejecting claims 5, 6, 15, and 20 over Labeque and Mangin, the
Examiner cited Mangin as evidence that it would have been obvious to
include a dishwashing detergent, as recited in claim 20, in Labeque’s
Appeal 2020-000140
Application 14/774,807

6
detergent-containing pouches. See Ans. 9–10. Accordingly, because
Mangin does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above in Labeque as to
claims 5, 6, and 15, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6,
15, and 20 over Labeque and Mangin.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 6, 15 103(a) Labeque 5, 6, 15
5, 6, 15, 20 103(a) Labeque, Mangin 5, 6, 15, 20
Overall
Outcome
5, 6, 15, 20

REVERSED