Appeal No. 1998-1247
Application No. 08/445,165
The Examiner has rejected claim 21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as indefinite.
The purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to basically insure an
adequate notification of the metes and bounds of what is being claimed. See In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
According to the Examiner, claim 17 does not provide proper antecedent basis for
claim 21. The Examiner states “[c]laim 21 which now depends from claim 17, recites a
method of controlling undesired plants using the preparation of claim 17. Claim 17
recites the active component as being a ‘pesticidally active substance’. It is not seen how
any ‘pesticidally active substance’ would provide the dependent claim 21's utility of plant
control.” (Answer, p. 4). The Examiner suggests this rejection can be overcome by
amending claim 21 to include the language “which contains a herbicidal agent”.
In response to this rejection, Appellants state, in the reply brief, “applicants will
amend claim 21 to overcome this formal issue and insert the language suggested by the
Examiner”. (Reply Brief, p. 3).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007