Appeal No. 94-2612
Application 07/759,478
present as well. Ex parte Boukidis, 154 USPQ at 444. Here
appellants’ specification clearly indicates that customary
auxiliaries such as emulsifiers may be added to the claimed
combination of herbicide and surfactant. See the
specification, page 2, lines 3 and 4, page 13, lines 4-7, and
page 13, line 34-page 14, line 7. Therefore appellants’
argument that the additional emulsifier of Röechling is
excluded from the appealed claims is not well taken.
Additionally, there is no evidence in this record that
the additional emulsifier of Röechling would affect the basic
and novel characteristics of appellants’ claimed compositions.
Appellants’ and Röechling’s compositions both have herbicidal
activity, although the composition of Röechling may possess
additional stability properties (see column 1, lines 10 and
30-34).
We find no patentable difference between the composition
or herbicidal agent of appealed claim 17 and the composition
of Examples 13 and 26 of Röechling. When every limitation of
a claim identically appears in a single prior art reference,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007