Appeal No. 2001-2046
Application No. 08/665,046
The examiner states that (Id.):
[t]he difference between the claimed invention and the cited references is
that no one reference explicitly discloses the combined use of high
release rate and low density of pheromone sources at the central region
of the field to be treated, and low release rate at high density of
pheromone sources at the peripheral region of said field.
The examiner attempts to make up this difference by suggesting that Athe claims are
drafted so as to be readable on rather routine and obvious placements of pheromone
sources.@ Id.
In response to the rejection of the examiner, appellants argue the examiner has
failed to state a prima facie case of obviousness. We agree.
In our view, the examiner has failed to provide evidence of a proper reason,
suggestion or motivation to combine the cited references in the manner claimed and
show that the combination describes every element of the claimed method. In
particular, we find the examiner to have mischaracterized the disclosure of Von Kohorn.
While Figure 7 and column 8 of Von Kohorn do depict and describe surrounding
individual trees with pheromone impregnated tapes or strips, in our view Von Kohorn
does not describe @substantially uniformly distributing sources of the sex pheromone
having an effective component-release rate of 0.01 to 0.05 g/day over the peripheral
region of the field at 500 to 2000 locations/ha,@ as claimed. [Emphasis added.] Von
Kohorn, column 13, states that Aattractant agents are characteristically volatile and will
tend to evaporate into the surrounding atmosphere to give a zonal effect to the
dispenser.@ Von Kohorn, continues, deployment of the dispenser means Apositioning
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007