Ex parte DONALD W. KELLEY - Page 8

                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.                                                                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007