Appeal No. 2002-2145
Application No. 09/113,808
First, the appellants incorrectly restrict the Liston reference
to disinfesting insect pests in agronomic commodities as opposed
to horticultural commodities such as citrus fruit. As accurately
noted by the examiner, Liston’s disinfesting method is directed
to food products generally. Although certain (but not all) of
the food products expressly identified by patentee constitute
agronomic commodities, this fact does not somehow restrict
Liston’s broad teaching. Similarly, the appellants
inappropriately restrict the field of their endeavor. For
example, the appellants restrict their field of endeavor not only
to a method of disinfesting insect pests in citrus fruit
specifically but also to such a method wherein the gaseous
atmosphere comprises the here claimed amount of oxygen (e.g., see
item 3 in the Staby declaration). In effect, the appellants
appear to define this field as being limited to the specific
method recited in appealed claim 1. It is simply improper and
unrealistic for the appellants to artificially define their field
of endeavor in such a restricted manner. From our perspective,
the fields of endeavor represented by Liston and by the appealed
claims are the same, namely, disinfesting insect pests in food
products generally.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007