Appeal No. 1996-2413
Application No. 08/120,194
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese ‘526
in view of Great Britain ‘887, South Africa ‘391 in view of
McAnalley and Japanese ‘390, and claims 6 through 8 and 12
through 15 are correspondingly rejected over these references
and further in view of Tovey in view of Dennis and Grossman.1
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a thorough exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above
noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the
rejections before us on this appeal.
We share the examiner’s conclusion that the applied
references establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter defined by, for example,
independent claim 1 on appeal. Concerning this issue, the
appellant argues that Japanese ‘526 “does not disclose vacuum
freeze-drying an entire leaf of an aloe plant” and indeed that
1On page 3 of the brief, the appellant states that
“[c]laims 1, 2, 6-8 and 12-15 stand or fall together”. See 37
CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007