Appeal No. 1996-0332
Application No. 08/075,017
declarations with regard to the issues before us prior to the
appeal and briefing stage in the present case. 2
OPINION
With regard to anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we
agree with appellants that the generic disclosure in the
Ishida reference of a myriad of possible “method-species”
precludes a finding of anticipation with regard to the two
particular method-species claimed by appellants.
On the other hand, we agree with the examiner that the
Ishida disclosure is sufficiently specific as to the
particular weeds (black grass and downy brome), crop (wheat)
and herbicide (compound 53) encompassed by appellants’ claimed
method to support a prima facie case of obviousness absent a
showing of unexpected results.
2The cited continuing application was referred to by
counsel at oral hearing, and indicated as having matured into
Patent No. 5,534,482.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007