Appeal No. 2005-1516 Application No. 09/182,645 obviousness rejection. These noted deficiencies in Wang, Ning and Tanuma 1 and 2 are not overcome by their further combination with Wen and Kim. In our view the examiner has not provided a clear reason, suggestion or motivation to combine Tanuma 1 and 2, disclosing a purified lignin glycoside for the treatment of cancer with Wang, describing a tea for the treatment of diabetes, or Ning, a tea for the treatment of ischemia. The examiner argues both Kim and Wen teach that a ginseng extract is useful for treating ischemia and/or reperfusion injury. Paper No. 29, Non-final, page 7. Wen describes the effects of red ginseng powder (RGP), crude ginseng saponin (CGS), crude ginseng non-saponin (CGNS), ginsenoside (Rb1) ginsenoside Rg1 and ginsenoside Ro on response latency of neurons in ischemic gerbils. Page 17. The examiner has not indicated or shown that any of the ginsenosides or crude ginseng products of Wen contain lignin glycoside. The examiner has not pointed out any teaching or suggestion in the art to use the lignin glycoside taught by Tanuma 1 and 2 in Wen’s patients. Nor has the examiner indicated how Wen makes up for any of the deficiencies noted in the combination of Wang, Ning and Tanuma 1 and 2. We do not find on the record before us the examiner has made out a prima facie case of obviousness in view of Kim for reasons similar to those cited for Wen. In view of the above, the rejection of the claims over Wang, Ning, Tanuma 1 and 2 in further view of Kim and Wen is reversed. 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007