Appeal No. 2004-0825
Application 09/954,786
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the “Pesticide” reference.
Claim 211 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown in view of Bond.
As indicated on page 4 of the brief, the appealed
claims have been separately grouped and argued by the appellants.
Accordingly, our disposition of this appeal has included the
separate consideration of each claim and each argument made
with respect thereto. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
Rather than reiterate the respective positions
advocated by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejections, we refer to the brief and reply brief as
1 As appreciated by both the appellants (see page 14 of the
Brief) and the examiner (see pages 4-5 of the Answer), the final
rejection based on Brown in view of Bond erroneously referred to
claim 20 rather than claim 21. The appellants have recognized
this error and have presented in their brief and reply brief
arguments against the rejection of claim 21 based on Brown in
view of Bond. Under these circumstances, the examiner’s
aforementioned error is harmless since the appellants have not
been prejudiced thereby.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007