Appeal No. 95-0678
Application 07/938,960
Unlike Baird, in the present case guar gum is specifically
disclosed by Redenbaugh along with many other species (col. 4,
lines 66-67). Thus, to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention,
there is no need to select an undisclosed specie out of a genus
encompassing over 100 million species. It is only necessary to
select one of many disclosed species. The fact that many species
are disclosed would not have made any of them less obvious,
particularly where, as here, the material recited in appellant’s
claim is used for the same purpose taught by the reference, i.e.,
coating seeds. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804,
807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975
(1989).
For the above reasons, we conclude that a gin-run fuzzy
cottonseed coated with a guar product such that the dried coated
seed is flowable as recited in appellant’s claim 1 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Hinkes and
Redenbaugh. Accordingly, the rejection of this claim under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Since appellant states that claims
2, 3, 5 and 8 stand or fall with claim 1 (brief, page 5), the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 also is affirmed.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1988).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007