Appeal No. 2005-1516
Application No. 09/182,645
obviousness rejection. These noted deficiencies in Wang, Ning and Tanuma 1 and 2
are not overcome by their further combination with Wen and Kim. In our view the
examiner has not provided a clear reason, suggestion or motivation to combine Tanuma
1 and 2, disclosing a purified lignin glycoside for the treatment of cancer with Wang,
describing a tea for the treatment of diabetes, or Ning, a tea for the treatment of
ischemia.
The examiner argues both Kim and Wen teach that a ginseng extract is useful for
treating ischemia and/or reperfusion injury. Paper No. 29, Non-final, page 7. Wen
describes the effects of red ginseng powder (RGP), crude ginseng saponin (CGS),
crude ginseng non-saponin (CGNS), ginsenoside (Rb1) ginsenoside Rg1 and
ginsenoside Ro on response latency of neurons in ischemic gerbils. Page 17. The
examiner has not indicated or shown that any of the ginsenosides or crude ginseng
products of Wen contain lignin glycoside. The examiner has not pointed out any
teaching or suggestion in the art to use the lignin glycoside taught by Tanuma 1 and 2 in
Wen’s patients. Nor has the examiner indicated how Wen makes up for any of the
deficiencies noted in the combination of Wang, Ning and Tanuma 1 and 2.
We do not find on the record before us the examiner has made out a prima facie
case of obviousness in view of Kim for reasons similar to those cited for Wen. In view
of the above, the rejection of the claims over Wang, Ning, Tanuma 1 and 2 in further
view of Kim and Wen is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007