Appeal No. 1997-2828
Application No. 08/087,548
1996) . Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the
prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would
have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at
the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by the
examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
O’Sullivan is relied on by the examiner for the disclosure of the use of numerous
avermectin and milbemycin pesticides for the control of endo-parasites and ecto-
parasites. O’Sullivan also discloses the topical application of such compositions.
Asato is relied on for the disclosure of “the claim designated compounds as old and
well-known for the utility claimed in the instant application in combination with various
carriers and excipient.” Answer, pages 8-9. The examiner relies upon Maienfisch for a
disclosure of the recited class of compounds in combination with “a plethora of
excipient and carriers, and pour-on formulations”. The examiner suggests that the
“selection of an appropriate solvent system would have been a simple selection from a
group of obvious alternatives available to the skilled artisan.” Answer, page 9.
Kieran describes the use of pour on formulations of avermectins and
milbemycins for the control of insects and/or endo-parasites and ecto-parasites. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007