Appeal No. 2000-0023
Application 08/967,856
with the expectation that the active ingredient from Brouwer
would kill the fungus, prevent rot and, therefore, preserve
the trees ("wood").
Appellants argue that Brouwer does not teach or suggest
that the therein disclosed compounds would have been expected
to be useful for protecting "wood" against fungi. Appellants
further argue that neither does Hagar disclose compounds as
claimed as useful for protecting "wood" against wood-damaging
organisms. Although appellants argue that the combination of
references is improper because Hagar is from so-called "non-
analogous art", appellants urge that even if combined the
prior art would not have suggested the claimed method.
It is by now fundamental that pending claims in an
application for patent are given their broadest, reasonable
interpretation, in light of the teachings of the prior art and
consistent with an applicants’ disclosure as it would have
been interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971);
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 550,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007