Appeal No. 1999-0341
Application No. 08/543,351
only example provided in appellants’ specification which relates to claim 16 is
example 8 (page 18). Here an insecticidal solution was applied to filter paper, prior
to introduction of termites. As reported in table 1 (specification, page 20) both the
imidazolidine compounds (I-1 and I-3) and the thiazolidine compound (I-2) all
exhibited the same activity, measured by mortality of termites after four days. As a
result, we find nothing in this example which renders the method of claim 16
unexpected. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of unexpected results was
not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiokawa.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007