Appeal No. 1997-3037
Application 08/390,412
When we consider that claim 22 is directed to a process, rather than a composition,
it is apparent that neither the examiner’s nor appellants’ position is on point. “Anticipation
requires identity of the claimed process and a process of the prior art; the claimed
process, including each step thereof, must have been described or embodied . . . in a
single reference.” Glaverbel S.A. v. Northlake Mkt’g & Supp., Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1554, 33
USPQ2d 1496, 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Claim 22 requires a step of blending a “fragrance product” with a “fragrance
composition” containing two components: (a) 1,3-dimethoxy-5-methylbenzene in an
amount of from 0.01 to 30% by weight; and (b) a stimulative component, either a jasmine
formulation or a floral formulation. The examiner does not point out, and we do not find, a
description of that step in Yomogida. At best, the reference describes the step of blending
one component of the fragrance composition, 1,3-dimethoxy-5-methylbenzene, with a
fragrance product (“dialkoxydialkylbenzene is particularly effective . . . when it is mixed with
a natural rose essence or a synthetic rose aromatic containing one or more substances
from the group consisting of phenyl ethyl alcohol, citronellol, geraniol, nerol, citronellyl
acetate and geranyl acetate” (page 6)).
Accordingly, we find that Yomogida does not anticipate the invention of claim 22,
and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) is reversed.
Obviousness
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007