Appeal No. 2000-1568
Application 08/695,249
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellants regard as their invention.
II. Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shasha ‘697, Shasha ‘377, Connick, Quimby and Levy.1
We reverse.
Background and Discussion
As indicated by the claims, the present invention is directed to a granular
formulation which comprises (i) a biocontrol agent selected from the group consisting of
bacteria, fungi, viruses, microsporidians, protozoa, nematodes and pathogenic
components thereof, (ii) a water absorbent material (e.g., starch polyacrylonitrile graft
®
copolymers such as “Super Slurper” and “Water-lock ”), (iii) a membrane stabilization
agent (e.g., sucrose and disaccharides such as trehalose), and (iv) a granulating agent
® ®
(e.g., diatomaceous earth, Cab-O-Sil , and Hi-Sil ), combined together in a blended
mixture. The membrane stabilization agent is present in the range of about 10-65%
by dry weight of the complete formulation. In addition, the invention is directed to a method
1In the final rejection, claims 1-18 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zidack (Zidack et al., Phytopathology, “Am. Phytopathol. Soc.
Annual Meeting”, Vol. 85, Abstract 792 (August 12-16, 1995)), Shasha ‘697, Connick,
Quimby, and Levy. However, since this rejection was not repeated in the Examiner’s
Answer, we presume that it has been withdrawn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007