Appeal No. 2006-1738 Page 12
Application No. 10/059,564
the highest density obtained (Id., page 8), but no explanation is given as to why it was
selected, nor whether it was considered to be a critical value.
Because we affirm the rejection of claims 1-8 over Richardson in view of
Minagawa, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether Richardson alone renders
claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8 obvious. Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
Other Issues
Having construed claim 1 to not be restricted to compacted cellulose termite
baits, we are mindful that the claim may cover other types of cellulose compositions
having a density of at least 1.033 gm/cc, irrespective of the intended use. If further
prosecution is pursued in this application, the examiner should consider the relevance
of the following references: U.S. Pat. No. 4,357,467; U.S. Pat. No. 5,574,150; and U.S.
Pat. No. 5,674,507.
Summary
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-8 as obvious in view of Richardson in view of
Minagawa et al.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007