Ex Parte Griffith - Page 2


                    Appeal No.  2004-1968                                                                       Page 2                      
                    Application No.  10/000,311                                                                                             
                    include claim 8 as part of the subject matter of the instant appeal.  Id., see also,                                    
                    appellant’s statement of the Issues on Appeal (Brief, page 3), which does not                                           
                    include claim 8.  In this regard, we note, appellant’s statement (Brief, page 19),                                      
                    “[t]he rejection of claim 8 concerns a minor clerical error easily corrected by                                         
                    amendment and thus has not been appealed.  The examiner also recognized                                                 
                    (Answer, bridging sentence, pages 2-3), “the indefiniteness rejection of claim 8 is                                     
                    not being contested….”  Since appellant has conceded to the examiner’s                                                  
                    rejection of claim 8 and has not placed claim 8 before us on appeal, we have not                                        
                    considered claim 8 in our deliberations.                                                                                
                            Claims 6, 12, 17, 19, 26 and 30 are illustrative of the subject matter on                                       
                    appeal and are reproduced below.  In addition, for convenience, we have                                                 
                    reproduced allowable claims 1, 2, and 11 below:                                                                         
                        1. Seed of corn inbred line designated LH321, representative seed of said                                           
                            line having been deposited under ATCC Accession No.           .                                                 
                        2. A corn plant, or parts thereof, produced by growing the seed of claim 1.                                         
                        6. The corn plant of claim 2, wherein said plant is further defined as                                              
                            comprising a gene conferring male sterility.                                                                    
                       11. A method for producing a hybrid corn seed comprising crossing a first                                            
                            inbred parent corn plant with a second inbred parent corn plant and                                             
                            harvesting the resultant hybrid corn seed, wherein said first inbred parent                                     
                            corn plant or second said parent corn plant is the corn plant of claim 2.                                       
                       12. A hybrid corn seed produced by the method of claim 11.                                                           
                       17. A method for producing inbred LH321 seed, representative seed of which                                           
                            have been deposited under ATCC Accession No.           , comprising:                                            

                                                                                                                                            
                    stated on pages 10-11 of the last Office [A]ction.”  At page 10 of this “last” Office Action, mailed                    
                    January 13, 2003, the examiner finds “[c]laim 8 is indefinite in its recitation in line 1 of                            
                    ‘the...protoplasts’ which lacks antecedent basis in claim 6.  Amendment of claim 8, line 1 to delete                    
                    ‘the’ before ‘cells’ would obviate this rejection.”                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007