Appeal No. 93-4108
Application 07/552,880
We have carefully considered the statement of this rejection as it appears on pages
4-6 of the Examiner’s Answer. However, the examiner has not explained the factual basis
of this rejection with the degree of specificity required for us to review the rejection. It is not
apparent from the statement of the rejection why the subject matter of any individual claim
would have been suggested from a consideration of the combined disclosures of
Beversdorf ‘084 and Beversdorf ‘763.
For example, in regard to claims 19-26, the examiner states the following at page 5
of the Examiner’s Answer:
Claims 19-26 of the instant application present the planting of separate male
and female parents in which the male parent possess [sic] herbicide
resistance and seed are [sic] selectively harvested only from the female
plant. The hybrid seed and plants derived from the same are produced by
the application of the selective herbicide to the seed. Thus, in terms of this
embodiment, the prior art differs only in the use of separate plants [sic]
blocks as a means of controlling the plants from which presumed hybrid
seed are formed.
It is not clear what the examiner means in stating “the prior art differs only . . . .” Is the
examiner relying upon Beversdorf ‘084 by itself in rejecting claims 19 through 26 or is a
combination of the disclosures of Beversdorf ‘084 and Beversdorf ‘763 relied upon? If the
latter is intended, the examiner has not explained in what manner the two disclosures are
combined in order to arrive at the subject matter of any of claims 19 through 26. For
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007