Appeal 2006-2185
Application 10/248,892
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hawkins ‘005 or Hawkins ‘510, each in view of Taylor
and Graves.
OPINION
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in view of the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially
the reasons expressed in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants do not argue the claims separately. Thus, we select claim
1 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this appeal.
Appellants dispute with the Examiner’s obviousness determination
centers on the question of whether or not it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the reaction mixture of either Hawkins
‘005 or ‘510 at a temperature corresponding to the claim 1 temperature of
from about 40 degrees Celsius to about 55 degrees Celsius until urea
dissolves taking into account the combined teachings of the applied
references. In this regard, Appellants do not argue with the Examiner’s
determination that both Hawkins ‘005 and ‘510 suggest a process of forming
a triazone-containing plant nutrition solution from a reaction mixture that
includes water, urea, formaldehyde (formalin) and an alkaline material, such
as potassium hydroxide. Nor do Appellants argue with the Examiner’s
determination that both Hawkins ‘005 and ‘510 teach or suggest reacting
such a mixture with ammonia reactant using conditions, including alkalinity
and temperature, to form a triazone product. Moreover, Appellants and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007