Appeal No. 95-0678
Application 07/938,960
ordinary skill in the art through no more than routine
experimentation in view of the Hinkes disclosure. See In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 457, 105 USPQ 233, 236 (CCPA 1955). Thus,
cottonseed having a coating of a guar product in an amount
recited in appellant’s claims 6 and 7 would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
applied references.
Concerning claim 9 , appellant argues that neither Hinkes2
nor Redenbaugh discloses a conditioning binder for reducing dust
and toughening and strengthening the coating on the exterior
surface thereof (brief, page 14). We are not persuaded by this
argument because it appears that the polymeric film (col. 1,
lines 35-39) formed on the Hinkes’ vegetable gum pretreatment
coating would toughen and strengthen the coating and would reduce
dust emission from it.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hinkes and Redenbaugh is affirmed.
Regarding process claim 10, the examiner argues that
“wetting the seeds first and then applying a water soluble powder
The amendment to claim 9 submitted in the reply brief filed on April2
19, 1994 (Paper No. 15) has not been entered and therefore is not before us.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007