Appeal No. 1998-1247
Application No. 08/445,165
Claim 21, as of the time of this decision, has not been amended as suggested by
the Examiner. Since Appellants have acquiesced to the rejection as presented by the
Examiner, we will affirm the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as indefinite.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 17, 18 and 20-22 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the combination of Schlicht and The Agrochemicals Handbook.3
We have thoroughly reviewed each of the arguments for patentability contained in
the Examiner’s Answer and in Appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief. We are in complete
agreement with Appellants that the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 18 and 20 to 22.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
3In rendering our decision, we will refer to the English translation of Schlicht which has been
provided by the USPTO and included in the present record.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007