Appeal No. 94-2842
Application 07/882,351
(page 696) and Lampman I (page 964, Table 1) disclose use of
phenylethanol as an volatile attractant for southern corn
rootworm, and Lampman (page 964, Table 1) also discloses use of
p-anisyl alcohol (i.e., 4-methoxyphenyl alcohol) for the same
purpose. Two of the volatile attractants recited in appellants’
claims 8 and 9 are phenylpropanol, which is an adjacent homolog
of phenylethanol, and 4-methoxyphenyl ethanol, which is an
adjacent homolog of 4-methoxyphenyl propanol. Adjacent homologs,
due to their structural similarity, are expected to have similar
properties. See In re Henze, 181 F.2d 196, 201, 85 USPQ 261, 265
(CCPA 1950). Consequently, it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the
teachings by Andersen and Lampman I, together with the teaching
by Metcalf discussed above, to use either phenylpropanol or 4-
methoxyphenyl ethanol in combination with a cucurbitacin in a
bait for southern rootworm. Appellants’ argument (brief, pages
30-31) that In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731-32, 226 USPQ 870,
872 (Fed. Cir. 1985), is to the contrary is not persuasive
because the compounds in that case were not adjacent homologs.
Appellants argue that none of the volatile attractants
recited in appellants’ claims 8 and 9 is a homolog of the prior
art northern corn rootworm attractants (brief, page 39). This
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007