Appeal No. 94-4173 Application 07/868,492 the applied prior art, or knowledge generally available, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references and to produce the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The teaching or suggestion must be in the prior art, and not in the applicants’ disclosure. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the case before us, the examiner has not provided a single, coherent reason, based on the applied references, or2 general knowledge, as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed method of extending the life of a pesticidal composition by microwaving a mixture of dichlorvos and chlorpyrifos. Accordingly, the rejection is reversed. 2We direct attention to the examiner’s conclusion on p. 5 of the final rejection (Paper No. 6) that [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sears with the teachings of Wilson and allan [sic, Allan] et al. since Sears teaches a bait as suggested by Wilson who teaches the specific organophophates [sic, organophosphates] suggested by Sears and Allan et al. suggests pva may be used with pesticides including chlorpyrifos and dichlorvos. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007