Appeal No. 94-2612
Application 07/759,478
ethyl.
The following prior art reference has been relied upon by
the examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Röechling et al. (Röechling) 4,870,103 Sep. 26,
1989
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Röechling. We affirm for reasons which 2
follow.
OPINION
The herbicidal agent of appealed claim 17 “consists
essentially of” a leaf-acting herbicide (i.e., the elected
species, fenoxaprop-ethyl, see claim 18) and C -C -alkyl
10 18
polyglycol ether sulfate surfactants.3
2 In the event of further or continuing prosecution, the examiner should note
that claims 1 and 15 fail to recite any active, positive process steps. See Ex parte
Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011, 1017 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986), and Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ
678, 679 (Bd. App. 1967).
3 Appealed claims 6 and 17 contain an exception clause to the possible
combinations encompassed by the claim language but this is directed to excluding the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007