Appeal No. 96-0513
Application No. 08/149,766
We reverse.
OPINION
The primary reference on which the examiner relies as
evidence of obviousness is Arnold. Arnold is directed to a
staged application of two foliar fertilizers at different
stages of plant growth. We agree with appellant's argument
that Arnold does not discuss anywhere in his disclosure sugar-
eating, slow-moving, soft-bodied insects let alone combating
such insects. We also agree with appellant that Arnold does
not teach appellant's claimed fertilizer as useful in a method
for combating insects in a single application on plants
infested with sugar-eating, slow-moving, soft-bodied insects.
While Arnold may be considered to disclose the individual
ingredients used by appellant in the fertilizer composition of
his method, those ingredients are described in Arnold for
separate, sequential application to plants in different stages
of growth (see Tables 1 and 2 of Arnold). Whether or not such
separate, sequential application of the two, separate
fertilizer compositions disclosed in Arnold would have been
expected to combat sugar-eating, slow-moving, soft-bodied
insects is entirely conjectural. This is especially true in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007