Opinion ID: 855670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the hope declaration

Text: In response to the examiner’s final rejection, Kimura filed an amendment to the claims and submitted a declaration by Dr. Joe Hope. Kimura represented Dr. Hope as an “artisan who is clearly skilled in this field.” Kimura’s remarks argued that “Dr. Hope verifies that . . . a skilled artisan would not have attempted to protect a structure against [termites] . . . by applying an insecticidally active substance to discrete locations around the perimeter of the structure so as to form treated and untreated locations around the perimeter of the structure in the manner claimed.” Remarks 9–10. Kimura also argued that “Dr. Hope also verifies that the cited prior art is all directed to so called ‘barrier’ treatment techniques, wherein a complete barrier is formed around the perimeter of a structure to be protected.” Remarks 10. In his declaration, Dr. Hope stated that “the teaching of the common general knowledge and prior art . . . directs the skilled artisan to make a barrier treatment of chemical insecticide around a structure.” Dr. Hope individually distinguished the prior art references cited by the examiner. The Crosby patent, he said, “recites a method wherein a volatile insecticide is placed at discrete locations around a house with the intention that the insecticide may vaporize and thus create a barrier to termite ingress.” The Mihealsick reference, Dr. Hope said, involves the application of insecticide “under a concrete slab and/or around a house” for the purpose of “creating or regenerating a barrier.” Dr. Hope characterized Kimura’s claimed invention as an “unobvious and surprising process” because “insecticide is applied to discrete locations along the perimeter of the structure to form treated and untreated locations along the perimeter.” Based on Dr. Hope’s declaration and Kimura’s re- marks, the examiner allowed the claims of Kimura’s application. 10 BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN