Appeal No. 2001-0647
Application 08/150,703
specification. Nor has the Examiner relied upon extrinsic evidence establishing that
the coating compositions taught by Stendel meet the “friable” limitation of these
claims. Absent a proper accounting of the word “friable,” we hold that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 32-38, 46-53, 64, and 65 over the combined
teachings of Stendel, Quisumbing, Lloyd, Shearer, Seiner and Scholl is reversed.
B. The rejection of claim 42 over the combined teachings of Stendel,
Quisumbing, Lloyd, Shearer, Seiner, and Scholl.
As discussed above, 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).
At column 5, lines 26-51, Stendel describes coating compositions comprising
pyrethroid, an insect toxicant:
…suitable carriers are also coatings which have been applied
to a rigid or flexible substrate. Coatings of this type may be
absorbent and be treated with agents containing active compound.
However, they can also be non-absorbent and contain the
incorporated active compound. As a rule, these coatings are
adherent polymers to which, where appropriate, inert fillers have been
added. The polymers which are used for this purpose are the surface
coating raw materials of the paints industry and, for example, cellulose
derivatives, acrylates and methylacrylates.
Examples of fillers for the production of absorbent coatings
which may be mentioned are kaolin, calcium carbonate, silicates,
bentonites, cellulose, cellulose derivatives, starch and sawdust. In
these cases, the active compound is either already incorporated in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007