Appeal No. 2000-1568
Application 08/695,249
of preparing a granular biocontrol agent which comprises (i) blending an aqueous
suspension of a biocontrol agent selected from the group consisting of bacteria, fungi,
viruses, microsporidians, protozoa, nematodes and pathogenic components thereof with a
water absorbent material and a membrane stabilization agent into a dough, (ii) blending
the dough of subsection (i) with a granulating agent to produce granules, and (iii)
recovering the granules of subsection (ii). The granules can be dispersed in water to
produce a sprayable formulation.
According to the specification, the present formulation is useful in the control of
agricultural pests such as insects, weeds, crop diseases, and detrimental nematodes.
Specification, p. 5.
I. § 112, second paragraph rejection
First, the examiner contends that claims 1 and 9 are vague and indefinite in the
recitation of “and pathogenic components of said agents.” Answer, p. 3. According to the
examiner, it is not clear which parts of the claimed biocontrol agents are pathogenic. Id.
We find the examiner’s position untenable.
A seminal case which provides guidance for determining whether the claims satisfy
the requirements of the second paragraph of § 112 is In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 169
USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971). There, the court pointed out, inter alia, that “the definiteness of
the language employed must be analyzed- not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007