Appeal No. 2002-2243 Page 2
Application No. 09/768,321
set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief and independent claims 21 and 23 are
reproduced, infra, in the opinion section of this decision.
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 21 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Palmere1.
Claims 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Palmere.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 13 and 15) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Palmere patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Independent claims 21 and 23 on appeal read as follows:
21. A method of making a mulch for eradicating termites
without poisoning soil comprising spraying at least one of
tree bark and wood chips with an aqueous solution of a
1 U.S. Patent No. 5,104,664, issued April 14, 1992 to Palmere et al.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007