Appeal No. 94-4173
Application 07/868,492
Claims 8 and 15 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and read as follows:
8. A method of extending the life of a pesticidal
composition comprising a mixture of dichlorvos and chlorpyrifos,
said method comprising subjecting said mixture to microwave
radiation to extend life of the pesticidal composition.
15. An aqueous pesticidal composition having improved
residual pesticidal protection prepared by the method of Claim 8.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Sears 4,514,960 May 07, 1985
Allan et al. (Allan) 4,554,155 Nov. 19, 1985
Wilson 4,707,355 Nov. 17, 1987
Claims 8 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sears in view of Wilson and Allan.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Wilson.
We reverse both rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
It is well settled that the examiner has the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976). This burden can be satisfied when the examiner
provides objective evidence that some teaching or suggestion in
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007