Appeal No. 95-2088
Application 08/056,882
and MGK-264, to soil containing live termites. Brief, pp. 4-
5. To that end, we point out that the references were relied
on in combination and that the appellants cannot demonstrate
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. In
re Betz, supra; In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ 725,
728 (CCPA 1968).
In addition, we find that the appellants have
mischaracterized the teachings of Kimura. According to the
appellants Kimura “does not teach or suggest the combination
of fenvalerate and MGK 264, much less a method as recited in
claim 6 whereby a composition containing fenvalerate and MGK
264 is applied to soil where termites are alive.” Brief, p.
4, last para. We disagree. As discussed above, Kimura
describes his invention as being directed to a composition
comprising a wood pest-controlling agent and an efficacy
enhancer. Kimura, p. 3. Kimura points to a limited list of
efficacy enhancers, which includes the well-known enhancer,
MGK-264. Kimura teaches that the disclosed efficacy enhancers
will work effectively with “any insecticides belonging to
pyrethroid compounds [emphasis added].” Kimura, p. 6, lines
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007