Appeal No. 94-2612
Application 07/759,478
According to appellants, the invention relates to
combinations of plant protection agents and surfactants
(brief, page 2). An election of species was required by the
examiner (see the Office action dated April 22, 1992, Paper
No. 3). Appellants elected the species combination of
fenoxaprop-ethyl herbicide and the alkyl polyglycol ether
sulfate surfactant with traverse (see the amendment dated June
22, 1992, page 5, Paper No. 5). The examiner repeated the
election requirement and deemed the appellants’ reasons for
traverse “non-persuasive” (page 2, Office action dated Sept.
10, 1992, Paper No. 6). As noted by the examiner (answer,
page 2), “the claims have been examined insofar as they read
on the elected species combination of fenoxaprop-ethyl and C -
10
C alkyl polyglycol ether sulfate surfactants.” Appellants
18
have not contested this statement and therefore we will limit
our review to the elected invention.
Appellants state that the claims should be considered in
two groups (brief, page 3) and set forth specific reasons
therefore for the group of claims 6-9 and 17-18 that contain
“consisting essentially of” language (brief, page 4). No
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007