Appeal No. 1999-1101
Application 08/727,125
and would have been obvious for the same reason. The
rejection of claims 7 and 13 is sustained.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, and 12
Claims 2, 4, and 10 recite measuring by passing the
sensor over the crop by securement to a center pivot
irrigation system. Claim 4 also recites that the fertilizer
application is by fertigation.
Appellants argue that claim 2 depends from claim 1 and is
patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 (Br19), that
claim 4 depends from claim 3 and is patentable for the same
reasons as claim 3 (Br20), and that claim 10 depends from
claim 9 and is patentable for the same reasons as claim 9
(Br21). We disagree that claims 1, 3, and 9 are patentable
for the reasons stated in the discussion of those claims.
Appellants argue that it would have been unobvious to
combine Wolfe with Monson and Demetriades-Shah since Wolfe
senses only moisture in soil and does not relate to sensing a
characteristic that reflects the attribute of a plant (Br19).
Moreover, it is argued, Wolfe senses the soil in only one
location and could not accommodate variation of the needs of
the crop from location to location (Br20). It is argued that
- 22 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007