Appeal No. 93-2757
Application 07/908,856
constitutes reversible error. As stated in Richardson-Vicks
Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483, 44 USPQ2d 1181,
1186 (Fed. Cir. 1997), quoting from In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746,
750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995), “all evidence of
nonobviousness must be considered when assessing
patentability.”
On this record, we find that (1) the distillation of
fresh camomile flowers gives rise to unexpectedly superior
results as reported in the Carle Declaration, and (2) the
declaration evidence serves to rebut any prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 14 said to be established by 2 170 404 A.
On the strength of the declaration evidence, we reverse the
examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the body of this opinion, we
affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 through 13
on prior art grounds based on GB 2 170 404 A. We reverse the
rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
GB 2 170 404 A. Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is
affirmed-in-part.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007