Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
material per 100 parts grain. Again, the examiner does not
specifically point to any disclosure of Devic that discloses the
subject matter of claim 16. At best, at the top of page 3 of the
final Office action mailed June 4, 2004, the examiner points out
that Devic teaches that the amount of alkaline agent may vary in
a range from 0.55 to 10.0% and refers to column 2, lines 20-25 of
Devic. Hence, we must reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 16, but we reject claim 16 anew, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 17, we note that appellant does not
specifically argue the subject matter of this claim. Brief, page
15. We note that claim 17 depends upon 15 and claim 15 depends
upon claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue claim 15
either. Therefore, for the same reasons that we affirmed the 35
U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, we also affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 15 and 17.
On pages 15-16 of the brief, appellant argues claim 22.
Claim 22 recites that the alkaline solution and peroxide solution
are combined immediately prior to application onto the grain.
Appellant argues that Devic does not specify whether the alkaline
solution is prepared just prior to the application of the grain,
or days or weeks before application to the grain. Brief, page
15. We find that the examiner does not point to any disclosure
of Devic that indicates what time the aqueous alkaline hydrogen
peroxide solution is prepared prior to application of the grain.
Therefore, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007