Appeal No. 95-1189
Application No. 07/800,471
30. Antidote A is indicated to be a preferred species of antidotal compound. Brinker, p.
3, lines 63-65 and p. 5, lines 40-49.
31. Brinker also specifically describes Antidote A in Table 1 (example 3) and a method
of producing the compound. Brinker, p. 12 (example 3) and p. 6, lines 20-55.
32. The antidote A compound is referred to by Brinker as antidote 3. Brinker, p. 12,
Table 1 (example 3).
33. Brinker further teaches:
As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the practice of this
invention comprises the use of the novel antidotal compounds
disclosed and claimed herein with any herbicidally-active compound.
Obviously, the above listings of exemplary [herbicidal] compounds is
[sic, are] not intended to be exhaustive, but representative. Again as
noted earlier herein, it is expected that not every combination of
herbicide and antidote will result in safening of all crops, but is within
the skill of the art to test any given herbicide with an invention
antidote in plant screens of any spectrum of plants and note the
results.
Brinker, p., 452, line 64 - p. 453, line 4.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
34. The Brinker reference is the closest prior art.
35. The teachings of the Brinker reference differ from the claimed subject matter in the
specific herbicides to be used in conjunction with the disclosed antidotal compounds.
36. Brinker does not teach using antidotes with
a herbicidally-effective amount which is damaging to crops of a
com pound according
t o Formula I or
agri X c u l t u r a l l y
a c c eptable salts
ther N A eof
SO2NHR
N
Z N
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007