Appeal No. 96-0513
Application No. 08/149,766
light of the narrow construction appellant urges we give the
appealed claims. Specifically, appellant urges that his
claims are limited to particular insects, particular plants
and particular times of application. Suffice it to say that,
in order to establish prima facie obviousness in the first
instance, the examiner must present evidence of obviousness,
not conjecture.
We agree with the examiner's conclusion that Bellanger is
merely cumulative to Arnold and, therefore, does not, either
alone or in combination with Arnold, render the claims on
appeal unpatentable. We also agree with the examiner that
Nagasawa discloses that the particularly prepared humic acid
required by claim 9 was well-known at the time appellant's
invention was made. However, Nagasawa alone or in combination
with Arnold and Bellanger does not render obvious, in the
sense of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the subject matter here on appeal.
Accordingly, on this record, because the examiner has
failed to establish that appellant's claimed method would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, we need
not address appellant's evidence of nonobviousness.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007