Ex parte OKAZAKI et al. - Page 4

              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.                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007