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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007