Appeal No. 2006-0370
Application 09/552,044
dispersions” presumably would be readily understood by those of
ordinary skill in the art.
REJECTION 2
With regard to the rejection based on Eversole and Heuer,
it is our view that the examiner has made out a prima facie case
of obviousness essentially for the reasons set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
As indicated by the examiner, Eversole discloses an aqueous
coating formulation which may contain both an active fungicide,
e.g., Captan (Example II), and a binder, e.g., penta soya oil
alkyd resin (col. 3, l. 38; Example VII). We agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious, within the
context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to substitute one of the sulfenamides
recited in the instant claims for Captan in Eversole since Heuer
(col. 4, l. 58-9) suggests that the instant sulfenamides and
Captan, which is also a sulfenamide, are alternative fungicides.
Appellants’ argument relating to the storage stability of
their composition is unpersuasive since appellants have failed
to adduce any evidence comparing the storage stability of their
composition relative to prior art formulations. Moreover, none
of the instant claims are limited in any way with regard to the
length of time that the composition in issue may be stored.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007