Opinion ID: 855670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the examiner’s rejections

Text: The examiner initially rejected the claims of Kimura’s patent application as obvious in view of a combination of prior art references. These references included two U.S. patents to Crosby and Mihealsick (U.S. Patent Nos. 3,624,953 and 5,390,440) (“Crosby” and “Mihealsick”), and two international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (Int’l Pub. Nos. WO 95/22902 and WO 96/16544). The examiner found that the international applications taught “that fipronil is an old termiticide applied to the same locus of the claims.” The examiner also found that the Crosby and Mihealsick patents “disclose methods of combating termites by applying a termiticide to discrete locations around a building or into the ground around a building.” Kimura sought to overcome the examiner’s rejections by distinguishing the cited references. Kimura distinguished the Crosby patent as being “designed to provide a ‘barrier’ around the building to be protected” rather than forming both “treated and untreated locations” as in Kimura’s claimed invention: [T]he method disclosed in the Crosby patent is de- signed to provide a barrier around the building to be protected. There is no teaching or suggestion in the Crosby patent of a method for the protec- tion of a building wherein a dilute solution or suspension of an insecticide in a liquid is applied to 8 BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN discrete locations along the perimeter of the building so as to form treated and untreated locations. (emphasis added). Kimura similarly distinguished the Mihealsick patent as requiring “the formation of a barrier that has no untreated locations”: There is no teaching or suggestion whatsoever of a process for the protection of a building wherein a dilute solution or suspension of an insecticide is applied to discrete locations along the perimeter of the building to form treated and untreated loca- tions. In contrast, the purpose of Mihealsick apparatus and method is to ensure the formation of a barrier that has no untreated locations. Kimura insisted that the prior art did not contain any “teachings or suggestions that would motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to deviate from the established practice of creating a continuous barrier around a building.” Kimura argued that none of the cited references “teaches the deliberate creation of untreated locations (i.e., loopholes) through which the crawling insect can reach the building without being exposed to the insecticide.” “In fact,” Kimura urged, “all of the cited documents teach away from this approach because they endeavor to create a barrier between the crawling insects and the building so that the insect cannot reach the building without being exposed to the insecticide.” The Examiner was not persuaded by Kimura’s argu- ments, and in a final Office action rejected Kimura’s claims as obvious in view of the cited prior art references. The Examiner noted, The prior art teaches that the same composition may be applied to the same locus in the same amounts. Therefore, the results would clearly be the same. The above rejection is deemed proper and adhered to. BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN 9