Appeal No. 1996-0332
Application No. 08/075,017
claims 41-50 and added claim 51 (Paper No. 23: Amendment F).
Thus, the only claim now before us for consideration on appeal
is claim 51.
The sole claim on appeal is directed to a method for
controlling two specific graminaceous weed species in an
upland-field of wheat with a particular herbicide as described
in the claim as follows:
51. A method for controlling a graminaceous weed
selected from the group consisting of at least one of black
grass and downy brome in an upland-field of wheat comprising
applying to the field a herbicidally effective amount of the
compound N-(2-
ethylsulfonylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridin-3-ylsulfonyl)-N’-(4,6-
dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)urea or an agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof.
Claim 51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the following single prior art reference:
Ishida et al. (Ishida) 5,017,212 May 21,
1991
Preliminary Matters
At the outset, we note that appellants have proffered
four declarations for consideration as follows:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007