Appeal No. 96-0228
Application 08/028,103
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies
upon the following references:
Strong 1,457,321 June 5, 1923
Clarke, Jr. (Clarke) 4,876,091 Oct. 24, 1989
Sjogren 4,971,796 Nov. 20, 1990
Gouge et al. (Gouge) 5,224,601 July 6, 1993
(filed Oct. 23, 1992)
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a pesticide
formulation in a water soluble receptacle. The formulation
comprises a water settable powder and a pesticide. When the
water soluble receptacle containing the pesticide formulation is
placed in water, the formulation sets up in situ into the final
form.
Appealed claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sjogren. Claims 1, 2 and 6-13
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Strong. Appealed claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Gouge.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejections.
We consider first the § 102 rejections over either Sjogren
or Strong. We agree with the examiner that both references
disclose a pesticide formulation in a water soluble receptacle,
since page 3 of appellants’ specification defines a water soluble
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007