Appeal No. 2001-0647
Application 08/150,703
Claims 32-38, 42, 46-53, 64, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon the combined
teachings of Stendel, Quisumbing, Lloyd, Shearer, Seiner and Scholl. We reverse
for claims 32-38, 46-53, 64, and 65 and affirm for claim 42.
1. Claim Interpretation
A. Claims drawn to an article of manufacture with a friable coating: 32-
38, 46-53, 64 and 65
Independent claim 65 is drawn to an article of manufacture comprising a
substrate having thereon a friable coating of a composition comprising a binder, a
pigment, an insect toxicant, a toxicant regeneration enhancer (or an insect feeding
stimulant in the case of claim 64) and an ingredient which is both a filler and a
thickener. It is important to note that these claims encompass only those
compositions comprising the above components and are “friable.” In other words,
the claims exclude those compositions comprising the above components but are
not “friable.”
Dispositive of the rejection of these claims is the meaning ascribed to the
term “friable.” The term is broad and encompasses varying degrees. In
interpreting this term, we are mindful:
[The] PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of words in their ordinary usage as
they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007