Appeal No. 94-2842
Application 07/882,351
at appellants’ invention recited in claim 20, it would be
necessary to both substitute an adjacent homolog for one of the
Lampman I compounds and to use this homolog to attract a
different species of corn rootworm. While it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above,
to use to attract southern corn rootworm an adjacent homolog of a
compound known to attract that rootworm, or to use to attract
northern corn rootworm a compound known to attract southern corn
rootworm, we do not consider the evidence to be strong enough to
support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of success when making these
substitutions in combination.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we conclude, based on the evidence of
record on balance, that the invention recited in appellants’
claims 8-18 and 23-31, but not that recited in appellants’ claims
20-22, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 8-19 and 23-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Merck, Andersen, Lampman I, Lampman
II, Ishikawa, Rhodes, Metcalf ‘922, Hennart, Metcalf and Lance,
-12-12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007