Appeal No. 2000-0023
Application 08/967,856
Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). We
are satisfied that Hagar is within appellants' field of
endeavor, that is, preservation of "wood" because it
recognizes the need for inhibiting fungal growth in almond and
walnut trees to prevent damage to the "wood" (trees).
Moreover, as correctly observed by the examiner, appellants do
not challenge the facts disclosed in Hagar on which the
examiner relies but only that Hagar's main thrust is to an
improved sprinkler head rather than treating fungi on "wood."
Appellants arguments concerning the examiner's allegedly
improper "hindsight" application of the prior art is not
persuasive. Appellants, again, read their claims too
narrowly. As we have stated above, we reject appellants'
interpretation of the claim terminology "treating the wood" as
not embracing applying the active agents of Brouwer on a
living tree ("wood").
Having concluded that the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the appealed subject
matter, it is necessary for us to consider appellants'
rebuttal
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007