Appeal 2006-3332
Application 10/161,519
matter of claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 is thus unpatentable over the combination
of Takenaka, Homma, and Appellant’s admissions.
With respect to claims 8 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to place a lid or cover on the Takenaka container 1 to
cover the insertion opening at the top thereof to prevent the toxicant-free
monitoring device and/or toxicant-containing matrix from drying out, to
prevent natural enemies of termites from entering the container 1, and to
prevent rain water from entering the container 1 as taught by Homma
(Homma Translation 5). Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 8 and 19
is also unpatentable over the combination of Takenaka, Homma, and
Appellant’s admissions.
Finally, as admitted by Appellant (Specification 19:2 and 19:11-13),
hexaflumuron, an acyl urea, is a well known termiticide. It follows that its
use as the termiticide in Takenaka’s device would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. The
subject matter of claims 10, 11, and 18 therefore is unpatentable over the
combination of Takenaka, Homma, and Appellant’s admissions.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. A new rejection of claims 1,
2, 4-13, and 15-22 is entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013