Ex Parte METCALF et al - Page 5




             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