Ex Parte METCALF et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 94-2842                                                                                   
             Application 07/882,351                                                                               


             Cucurbitacin Kairomones in Cucurbita Hybrids”, 105 J. Amer. Soc.                                     
             Hort. Sci. 838-42 (1980) (Rhodes).                                                                   
             Yukio Ishikawa et al., “Controlled release formulation of                                            
             attractant for the onion and seed-corn flies, Hylemya antiqua and                                    
             H. Platura (Diptera: Anthomyiidae)”, 22 Appl. Entomol. Zool. 303-                                    
             9 (1987), abstracted in 107 Chem. Abstracts 170560c (1987)                                           
             (Ishikawa).                                                                                          
             D.R. Lance, “Potential of 8-methyl-2-decyl propanoate and plant-                                     
             derived volatiles for attracting corn rootworm beetles                                               
             (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to toxic bait”, 81 J. Econ. Entomol.                                     
             1359-62 (1988), abstracted in 109 Chem. Abstracts 224679k (1988)                                     
             (Lance).                                                                                             
             Phenethyl alcohol, 7094, The Merck Index (10th ed., Merck & Co.                                      
             1983) (Merck).                                                                                       
                                                THE REJECTION                                                     
                    Claims 8-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                     
             unpatentable over Merck, Andersen, Lampman I, Lampman II,                                            
             Ishikawa, Rhodes, Metcalf ‘922, Hennart, Metcalf and Lance.3,4                                       
                                                   OPINION                                                        
                    We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced                                    
             by appellants and the examiner and agree with the examiner that                                      
             the invention recited in claims 8-19 and 23-31 would have been                                       

                    3The examiner also rejected claims 8-19 over the same                                         
             references using essentially the same language when explaining                                       
             the rejection.  Hence, we need not further address this                                              
             rejection.                                                                                           
                    4The rejections under 35 U.S.C.  101 and 112, first                                         
             paragraph, in the final rejection (paper no. 27 mailed on June 2,                                    
             1993) were withdrawn in the examiner’s answer (pages 3-4).                                           
                                                      -4-4                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007