Appeal No. 1999-0341
Application No. 08/543,351
overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973).
Therefore, we do not consider, appellants’ arguments regarding the Tsuboi
Declaration2 (Brief, pages 9-16) or the alleged unexpected results found therein.
Claim 16:
The examiner’s basis for the rejection is as follows:
The prior art clearly teaches that the claim designated imidazolidine is
an old insecticide. Therefore, on skilled in this art would find ample
motivation from the prior art supra to use the claimed compound,
known for its insecticide properties, to protect materials, such as
paper, leather, polymers or textiles from the target insects of the
instant application with a reasonable expectation that said compound
would be effective to protect said materials from insects.
In response to the examiner’s rejection appellants argue (Brief, page 16) that
Shiokawa “is completely silent” with regard to preserving leather, polymers or
textiles from attack by insects, and the examiner has not established that wood and
clay are equivalent to these materials.
We note claim 28 of Shiokawa which states “[a] method of combating
insects which comprises applying to … an insect habitat an insecticidally effective
amount of a compound according to claim 1.” As discussed supra, the active
compound, of the appealed method claims, is specifically identified as a species
within claim 1. Column 54, lines 18-21 of Shiokawa, disclose the use of the active
compounds against pests of “stored products.” As stated by the examiner (Answer,
bridging paragraph, pages 5-6):
2 The Tsuboi Declaration, executed November 1, 1993, was made of record in
Application No. 07/872,279 (Paper No. 24, received December 19, 1993), now
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007