Appeal No. 1996-2436
Application 07/887,451
negating the effect of carcinogens in lower animals (Examiner's Answer, page 4, lines
1 through 4.) In our judgment, the examiner has focused on a non-existent “difference”
between independent claim 1 and Amer, but missed the boat respecting the real
difference, i.e., vitamin E. This also constitutes reversible error.
For these reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness of claims 1 and 20 through 22. We therefore find it unnecessary
to discuss the declaration evidence, attached to applicants' Appeal Brief and relied on as
rebutting any such prima facie case.
Additionally, the file wrapper does not reflect that the examiner conducted a
computerized search. On return of this application to the examining corps, we recommend
that the examiner ensure that all relevant electronic databases have been searched.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007