Appeal No. 96-0228
Application 08/028,103
container as a pouch or capsule. However, appellants are correct
in their contention that neither reference discloses a pesticide
formulation comprising a water settable powder. While the
examiner states at page 3 of the Answer that Example 1 of Sjogren
discloses crosslinked collagen as a water settable powder, it is
clear from the reference at column 7, lines 20 et seq., that
crosslinked collagen is a form of collagen that is already set by
crosslinking and rendered less water soluble. Sjogren does not
describe a pesticide formulation that sets up upon contact with
water.
Regarding the § 102(b) rejection over Strong, appellants
accurately describe the reference as disclosing a pesticide
formulation that has been hardened and which does not contain a
water settable powder. The plaster of Paris of the reference is
composited with a binder, such as molasses or syrup, and Strong
expressly teaches that the plaster of Paris is readily hardened
when acted upon by the moisture of the molasses (page 1, lines
85-87).
Accordingly, it can be seen that neither Sjogren nor Strong
describes all the features of the claimed invention and, thereby,
cannot support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We now turn to the rejection of the appealed claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Clarke in view of Gouge. Although the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007