Appeal No. 94-1550
Application 07/893,662
compositions “without inconvenience.” See the reference at
column 3, lines 48-51.
In light of the disclosure in Delescluse, it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a
fungicide in the formulations disclosed by Dessaint. That the
language defining appellant’s pesticide ingredient (for example,
as broadly set forth in appealed claim 1 and claim 6) covers a
fungicide cannot be disputed by appellant. Indeed, appellant
broadly defines a “pesticide” as inclusive of a parasiticide
(Specification, page 16, lines 27-28) and appellant discloses the
specific use of triforine (Specification, page 17, line 3), a5
well known fungicide.
Returning to appellant’s argument regarding the “consists
essentially of” claim language, it is clear that appellant’s
broad claims do in fact cover a formulation which includes a
polyurethane. As set forth earlier, appellant contemplates the
use of his compositions on inanimate objects including wood and
masonry and appellant has made no showing that the inclusion of a
polyurethane in a composition used to coat an inanimate object
would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of
5See the Merck Index, 11th edition, published by Merck &
Company, copyright 1989, page 1524. A copy of this publication
is attached.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007