Appeal No. 1996-0716
Application 08/107,661
we find the request is, in essence, a statement by appellants
expressing their disagreement with the merits of a
particularly narrow portion of our opinion.
At page 2 of their request, appellants quote from a part
of our decision at page 10 wherein appellants note that we
observed that the issue before us was:
what "pesticides and herbicides" may be prepared from
appellants' intermediates and how they are prepared.
Appellants then answer the question they have posed by
concluding that the "pesticides and herbicides" which may be
produced are the same as those disclosed in the patent to
Ludvik (U.S. Patent Number 4,675,447). However, what
appellants have failed to reproduce in their request are the
sentences which immediately precede and follow the quoted
portion above. Reproduced in context from our decision at page
10, we found:
In reaching the conclusion above, we have not overlooked
appellants' argument from page 6 of their brief that the
term "an intermediate for herbicides" is "an art
recognized term." This is simply not the issue before us.
Rather the issue before us is what "pesticides and
herbicides" may be prepared from appellants'
intermediates and how are they prepared. Appellants have
simply failed to produce any evidence in this record
which establishes that given only appellants'
intermediates as starting materials a person of ordinary
skill in the art could prepare useful "pesticides and
herbicides" therefrom.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007