Appeal No. 94-2842
Application 07/882,351
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention over the applied references. Accordingly,
the rejection of these claims will be affirmed. However, we
agree with appellants that the rejection of claims 20-22 is not
well founded. Accordingly, we will reverse the rejection of
claims 20-22.
At the outset, we note that appellants state that the claims
stand or fall in five groups as follows: Group I, claims 8 and
15-18; Group II, claims 9-14 and 19; Group III, claims 20-22;
Group IV, claims 23-28; and Group V, claims 29-31 (brief, pages
7-8). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim within each
group, namely, claims 8, 9, 20, 23 and 29. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
Claim 23
The invention recited in claim 23 is a bait for northern
corn rootworm which includes phenylethanol as a volatile
attractant in combination with a cucurbitacin as a nonvolatile
compulsive feeding stimulant.
Metcalf teaches that cucurbitacins are powerful feeding
stimulants for a number of crop pests including northern and
southern rootworm, but that they are not volatile and are
ineffective as long-range attractants (page 870). Metcalf
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007