Appeal No. 95-0678
Application 07/938,960
Accordingly, these rejections will be reversed. However, we
agree with the examiner that the invention recited in appellant’s
claims 1-9 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellant’s invention over the applied
references. The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
therefore will be affirmed.
Appellant’s claimed invention, as it is most broadly
recited, is 1) a gin-run fuzzy cottonseed coated with a guar
product such that the coating, after drying, makes the coated
seed flowable, and 2) a method for coating gin-run fuzzy
cottonseed by wetting the cottonseed and then applying thereto an
excess of a powdered coating material which includes a water-
soluble material.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The examiner argues that in claims 1-9, “[t]he mere presence
of a coating does not confer a unique property to the seed itself
which would distinguish the seed from a naturally occurring seed”
(answer, page 3). In the examiner’s view (answer, page 6):
. . . the facts of the instant application
mirror those of American Fruit Growers v.
Brogdex, 8 USPQ 131 (U.S. 1931) which holds
that the presence of a coating on an orange
does not confer a unique property to an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007