Appeal No. 95-2088
Application 08/056,882
cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-methylbutyrate
(a.k.a., fenvalerate), and a known efficacy enhancer of wood
pest-controlling agents, such as N-(2-
ethylhexyl)bicyclo[2.2.1]hept-5-en-2,3-dicarboximide (a.k.a.,
MGK-264), to the soil. Since both Ito and Kimura teach the
use of a composition comprising fenvalerate and an efficacy
enhancer to control termites in the soil, and Kimura further
teaches the use of the efficacy enhancer MGK-264,
specifically, we concur with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at
the claimed method. It is considered obvious to employ two
known compounds for their known and expected results. In re
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Throughout the Brief, we find that the appellants’
response to the examiner’s rejection has primarily focused on
the shortcomings of the individual references and has not been
directed to the combined teachings of the applied prior art.
The appellants argue, individually, that Ito, Kimura and Joyce
do not teach a method of applying a combination of fenvalerate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007