Appeal No. 94-4173
Application 07/868,492
the applied prior art, or knowledge generally available, would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of the references and to produce the claimed subject
matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). The teaching or suggestion must be in the
prior art, and not in the applicants’ disclosure. In re Dow
Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir.
1988). In the case before us, the examiner has not provided a
single, coherent reason, based on the applied references, or2
general knowledge, as to why it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed method of
extending the life of a pesticidal composition by microwaving a
mixture of dichlorvos and chlorpyrifos. Accordingly, the
rejection is reversed.
2We direct attention to the examiner’s conclusion on p. 5
of the final rejection (Paper No. 6) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Sears with the teachings of Wilson and allan
[sic, Allan] et al. since Sears teaches a bait as suggested
by Wilson who teaches the specific organophophates [sic,
organophosphates] suggested by Sears and Allan et al.
suggests pva may be used with pesticides including
chlorpyrifos and dichlorvos.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007