Appeal No. 95-2088
Application 08/056,882
It is well established that the PTO bears the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223, USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner must establish that the
teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested the
present method for controlling termites to a person having
ordinary skill in the art, and that such persons would have
had a reasonable expectation of success of performing said
method. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-4, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). This suggestion need not be expressly
stated in any of the references but, rather, the test of
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Betz, 418 F.2d 942, 947, 163 USPQ 691, 695 (CCPA 1969).
Based on the collective teachings of the applied prior
art, and of Kimura, in particular, we agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to control termites by applying a composition
comprising a known wood pest controlling agent, such as "-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007