Appeal No. 96-0228
Application 08/028,103
examiner recognizes that Clarke does not disclose the claimed
water soluble receptacle, the examiner errs in finding that
Clarke describes a pesticide formulation comprising a water
settable powder. Clarke discloses that the pesticide, plaster of
Paris and water are uniformly mixed to provide a pellet which
uniformly releases the pesticide, and that the pellet, after
setting via the reaction of plaster of Paris and water, has
essentially no free water (see Abstract). Manifestly, the
pesticide-containing cast briquets of Clarke do not comprise the
claimed water settable powder. Since Gouge does not disclose
that the water soluble receptacle contains a water settable
powder, i.e., neither the first component nor the second
component of the pesticide is disclosed as comprising a water
settable powder, the combined teachings of Clarke and Gouge do
not result in the claimed pesticide formulation. Consequently,
the collective teachings of Clarke and Gouge do not factually
support a finding of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to
reverse the examiner’s rejections.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007