Appeal No. 95-1189
Application No. 07/800,471
I
wherein
A is N or C(Cl);
X is H or C alkyl or alkoxy;
1-4
Z is C alkyl or haloalkyl;
1-4
R is phenyl substituted in the ortho positions independently
with H, chloro, fluoro, nitro, -OCH or -CF groups and in the3 3
meta positions with H or CH groups.
3
37. Kleschick does not expressly teach the use of an antidote compound with the
disclosed herbicides.
The examiner’s and applicant’s positions
38. The examiner’s basis for rejecting the claims is set forth in the following excerpt from
the supplemental examiner’s Answer, pp. 3-4:
Brinker et al teach applicants [sic ’] antidotal compounds are
known as antidotes for a wide variety of herbicidal agents. (See claim
7).
Kleschick et al teach applicants [sic ’] herbicidal agent is
known. (See compound # 157.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in that art at the time the instant invention was made to combine the
known herbicide of the instant application with the known antidote as
motivated by Brinker et al which claims such a combination, i.e. the
instantly claimed antidote with a herbicidal agent.
39. Applicant’s position is set forth in the following excerpt from the supplemental appeal
brief, pp. 6-7:
Appellants’ argument summarily stated is three-fold, viz.:
(1) Brinker et al are absolutely devoid of any disclosure that their
safeners would be/could be/should be suitable for use with Appellants’
Formula I herbicides;
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007