Appeal No. 1997-1281
Application No. 08/317,830
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 BASED ON LODER
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 32 through 35, 38,
39, 41, 42 and 72 through 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the disclosure of Loder. Appellants do not dispute
that Loder teaches a thixotropic fungicidal suspension containing
the claimed surfactant and agrochemical. As correctly argued by
appellants (brief, page 16), the thixotropic fungicidal
suspension itself is not a gel. See also the specification, page
4. However, the examiner finds, and appellants do not dispute,
that Loder specifically teaches using the claimed gelling agents
in the thixotropic fungicidal composition described in Loder.
Compare Answer, pages 7 and 8, with the Brief and Reply Brief in
their entirety. We find that Loder teaches employing such
gelling agents in a thixotropic fungicidal composition to
“improve storage stability of the composition.” See column 2,
lines 3-9. Therefore, we determine that Loder would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007