Appeal No. 2002-2145
Application No. 09/113,808
In addition to the foregoing, we consider the Liston
reference to be analogous prior art because, in our view, it is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
appellants are involved. We find no persuasive merit in the
appellants’ argument that “Liston’s ‘particular problem’ is not
pest abatement in horticultural products such as citrus fruit”
(brief, page 12). This is because the appellants again have been
unduly restrictive in defining the particular problem with which
they are involved. Unlike the appellants, we do not perceive the
problem with which they are involved as being limited to pest
abatement in horticultural products such as citrus fruit
specifically. In this regard, it is clear from the subject
specification disclosure that at least one of the particular
problems with which the appellants are involved relates to the
killing of insect pests without regard to the specific food
product on which the pests are located. Certainly, this is
logical since the method in question would be ineffective if it
did not result in the pests being killed. Thus, based on logic
alone, pest-kill would necessarily constitute the particular
problem with which the appellants were involved, in the first
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007