Appeal No. 1997-2338
Application No. 08/173,376
thereafter contacting the dried film with water to swell the film and promote release
of the pesticide from the surface adherent film.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Chromecek 3,966,902 June 29, 1976
Amidon et al. (Amidon) 5,221,698 June 22, 1993
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 6 - 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph, as being based
on a non-enabling disclosure.
Claims 6 - 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies upon Chromecek and Amidon.
We reverse both rejections.
Discussion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the Examiner's Answer of February 16,
1996 (Paper No. 14) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellant's Appeal Brief of October 25, 1995 (Paper No. 13) and Reply Brief of April 22,
1996 (Paper No. 15) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007