Ex parte ROCHLING et al. - Page 9




              Appeal No. 1998-1247                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/445,165                                                                                
               fluoroglycofen-ethyl is known.  The present record indicates the selection of the solvent                
               which does not evaporate during granulation is important in forming a suspoemulsion.                     
               (Specification, p. 2).  The Examiner has not specified the portions of the cited references              
               which recognize or suggest the use of solvents with this property.  To the extent that                   
               Schlicht teaches isoproturon may be formulated into water dispersible granules, Schlicht                 
               does not describe the formation comprising a suspoemulsion of the combination of an                      
               aqueous dispersion of a pesticidally active substance having a melting point more than                   
                 o                                                                                                      
               65 C, a solution of a second active pesticidally active substance having a melting point                 
                        o                                               o                                          
               below 65 C and a solvent which has a boiling point above 170 C as required by claim 17.                  
                      In the absence of sufficient factual evidence or scientific rationale on the part of              
               the Examiner to establish  why and how a skilled artisan would have arrived at                           




               Appellants’ claimed invention from the applied references’ teachings as discussed above,                 
               we find that the Examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of establishing the prima                

               facie obviousness of the claimed subject matter.  Accordingly, we are constrained to                     

               reverse the Examiner*s rejection.                                                                        





                                                         - 9 -                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007