Ex parte ROCHLING et al. - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1998-1247                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/445,165                                                                                
               Schlicht et al. (Schlicht)         EP 388,867                  Sep. 26, 1990                             
                      (published EP patent application)                                                                 
               The Agrochemicals Handbook. The Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, August 1991,                             
               p. A0973.                                                                                                
                                                 THE REJECTIONS                                                         

                      The Examiner entered the following rejections:                                                    
                      Claims 17 and 20-22 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                     
               paragraph, for lack of an enabling disclosure.  (Answer, p. 3).                                          
                      Claim 21 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as                  
               improperly dependent on claim 17.   (Answer, p. 4).                                                      
                      Claims 17, 18 and 20-22 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over                   
               the combination of EP 388,867 (Schlicht) and The Agrochemicals Handbook.   (Answer,                      
               p. 4).                                                                                                   
                                                      OPINION                                                           

                      We affirm the rejection under § 112, second paragraph, and  reverse the  remaining                
               rejections for the reasons below.                                                                        




               The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph2                                                    


                      2We will not address Appellants comments regarding claims 18 and 19 because these claims          
               have not been rejected under § 112, first paragraph.                                                     
                                                         - 3 -                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007