Appeal No. 2001-0647
Application 08/150,703
2. The rejection of claims 32-38, 42, 46-53, 64 and 65 over the combined
teachings of Stendel, Quisumbing, Lloyd, Shearer, Seiner and Scholl
A. Because of the “friable” nature of the coating of claims 32-38,
46-53, 64 and 65, these claims will be considered apart from claim 42.
Stendel describes methods for controlling parasitosis in honey bees through
use of an active agent which is placed so that the bees come in contact therewith or
through the social exchange of food (column 2, lines 39-50). One embodiment of
providing the active agent by direct contact involves a coating composition which
comprises binder (column 5, lines 32-36); toxicant in the form of pyrethroids (column
1 to column 2, line 28); and a diluent for the toxicant, for example, cottonseed oil
(column 3, lines 26-33)2; and an ingredient which is both a filler and a thickener
(column 5, lines 37-44). In what appears to be another embodiment, the coating is
incorporated in the form of film, strip or tape (column 5, lines 51-55) and may
include coloring material (column 6, lines 37-39). The Examiner recognizes that
Stendel is silent with respect to the friable nature of the coating composition but
states that “[the coating] is presumed to be friable since its made of similar
ingredients. “ (Answer, sentence bridging pages 5 and 6)
2Cottonseed oil is useful in the present invention as a toxicant regeneration
enhancer as well as an insect feeding stimulant required by claims 65 and 64,
respectively (specification, page 6).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007