Appeal No. 1996-0270
Application 08/118,128
were less than expected. This argument is not persuasive
because appellant has not provided a comparison with the
closest prior art, which is Sun, see In re Baxter Travenol 5
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed. Cir. 1984), or provided evidence which is commensurate
in scope with the claims. See In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731,
743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622
F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Rejection of claims 2, 19 and 21
Appellant’s arguments that Sun teaches away from
obtaining the percentage of ferric chelate which does not sorb
to the soil recited in claim 2, and that NTA as recited in
claim 21 is relatively unstable (brief, page 8), are addressed
above in the discussion of the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the chelate in that claim, as in claim 1,
can be ferric nitrilotriacetate or ferric
hydroxyethyleniminodiacetate. Consequently, the method
5 Appellant acknowledges that Sun is the closest prior art
(reply brief, page 6).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007