Appeal No. 2000-1339
Application 08/772,480
we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 3, 5 through 11
and 22 which stand or fall therewith, as being
unpatentable over Robertson in view of Clark and Van
Steen.
III. The rejection of claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the step of
controlling the rate of application of the growth
regulating composition by incorporating an orifice into
the wick applicator. As correctly pointed out by the
examiner (see page 6 in the answer), this recitation
would be met by the inherent action of the openings in
the elongate body of Robertson’s wick applicator through
which the liquid chemical egresses.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over
Robertson in view of Clark and Van Steen.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007