Ex parte MEHTA et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2000-1872                                                                                        
              Application No. 09/087,746                                                                                  


                     B)     a quantity of at least one water-soluble colorant sufficient to prevent or                    
              minimize the photosynthesis of at least one of an algae and a weed; wherein said colorant                   
              is essentially non-toxic to fish ad other desireable aquaic life;                                           
                     C)     a growth accelerating quantity of a growth accelerator for component A) that                  
              accelerates the growth and reproduction of the component A) microorganisms.                                 
                     17.    A solid form composition of claim 1 wherein at least one of components A)                     
              and B) are encapsulated in a water-soluble coating in the form of spheres or capsules or                    
              microencapsulated as a free flowing powder.                                                                 
                     A) and B) is encapsulated in a water-soluble coating in the form of spheres or                       
              capsules or microencapsulated as a free flowing powder.                                                     
                     The references relied upon by the examiner are:                                                      
              Wilson                              4,042,367                   Aug. 16, 1977                               
              Bok et al. (Bok)                    5,273,749                   Dec. 28, 1993                               
              Diamond                             5,492,881                   Feb. 20, 1996                               
              Levy                                5,679,364                   Oct. 21, 1997                               
                                                 Grounds of Rejection                                                     

                    Claims 1 - 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).  As evidence of                   
            anticipation, the examiner relies upon Diamond.                                                               
                    Claims 1 - 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of obviousness the                   
            examiner relies upon Levy, Bok, and Wilson.                                                                   
                    We reverse both rejections for the reasons that follow.                                               







                                                            2                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007