Ex parte DONALD W. KELLEY - Page 9

          Appeal No. 94-1550                                                          
          Application 07/893,662                                                      

          his formulation.  In any event, the Delescluse reference clearly            
          describes an analogous formulation containing a fluorinated                 
          acrylic copolymer not containing a polyurethane component.                  
               We have also fully considered the Rule 132 Declaration                 
          presented by inventor Kelley which is of record and argued in               
          appellant’s Brief.  How the results of this Declaration which               
          compare a formulation with and without a specific insecticide               
          (Pyrethrin) are relevant to a rejection based on prior art                  
          disclosures of the use of fungicides is not apparent.                       
               Finally, appellant contends that he has discovered that the            
          addition of a fluorinated acrylic copolymer to an active                    
          ingredient containing liquid formulation unexpectedly protects              
          the active ingredient from removal or dilution by water or oil.             
          We cannot subscribe to this argument.  In our view, the addition            
          of a fluorinated acrylic copolymer, disclosed in Dessaint as                
          having known waterproofing and oilproofing properties, would have           
          been expected to protect the active ingredient against removal or           
          dilution by water or oil.                                                   
               In light of the foregoing discussion, we affirm the                    
          examiner’s obviousness rejection of appealed claims 1, 6 and 12-            
          18, since each of these claims cover a pesticide (fungicide)                
          ingredient.  We reverse the examiner’s rejection as to appealed             


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007