Appeal No. 1999-1101
Application 08/727,125
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monson, Demetriades-Shah,
and Peterson, further in view of Wolfe.2
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 12) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 22) for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 21)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claim 1
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Monson discloses a "real-time"
fertilization system in which fertilizer is dispensed in real
time in response to the measured composition of the soil.
"Real time" is interpreted to mean that the fertilizer is
applied at a certain location at approximately at the same
time as the measured need for fertilizer at that location.
The statement of the rejection in the examiner's2
answer, page 4, incorrectly includes allowed claim 11.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007