Appeal No. 1997-2338
Application No. 08/173,376
Stoner “Toxicity Effects and Chalkbroad Incidence in Honey Bee Colonies Fed Controlled
Doses of Fungicides,” Chemical Abstract Vol. 103, Abst. No. 191146e (1985)
Morgan “The Mandibular Gland Secretion of the Ant, Myrmica scabrinodis,” Chemical
Abstract, Vol. 89, Abst. No. 143599a (1978)
Kydonieus et al. (Kydonieus), Insect Suppression with Controlled Release Pheromone
Systems, CRS Press, Boca Raton, Fl., Vol. 1. pp 108-118, (1982)
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 52 - 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
based on an insufficient enabling disclosure for the subject claimed.
Claims 52 - 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies upon Hurt, Stoner, Kydonieus, and Morgan.
We reverse the rejection under 112, first paragraph, and remand the application to
the examiner for further consideration of the rejection under 103 for the reasons set forth
herein.
Discussion
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claims 52 - 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on a disclosure which is not enabling for the full scope of the claimed
invention. The full text of the examiner’s statement of the basis for this rejection is
reproduced below (Answer, page 2):
The claims are method claims, and control could not be
attained, unless additional information is provided, without
undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art. The
claims thus are beyond the scope of the specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007