Appeal No. 1999-1298
Application No. 08/667,167
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Finch-Savage 4,905,411 Mar. 6, 1990
Rowse 5,119,589 Jun. 9, 1992
(Hartmann), Plant Propagation, Principles and Practices, pp. 100-116 (Hartmann et
al. eds., Prentice Hall, 2nd ed. 1968)
Hegarty, “Seed Activation and Seed Germination Under Moisture Stress,” New
Phytol., Vol. 78, pp. 349-359 (1977)
(Bewley), Physiology and Biochemistry of Seeds, in Relation to Germination, Vol. 2,
pp. 7-59 (Bewley et al. eds., Springer Verlag, 1982)
Bradford, “Manipulation of Seed Water Relations Via Osmotic Priming to Improve
Germination Under Stress Conditions,” Hort. Science, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 1105-
1111 (1986)
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 45-651 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rowse in view of Finch-Savage, Hegarty, Bradford, Bewley and Hartmann.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered appellants’
specification and claims, in addition to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer2 for the
1 We note the following typographical error. The examiner’s statement of the
rejection does not include claim 65. However, the examiner’s explanation of the
rejection clearly includes a discussion of claim 65. See, e.g., Answer, page 14. In
addition, appellants correctly note that claims 45-65 are included in this rejection.
See, e.g., Brief, page 5. Accordingly, this typographical error is corrected herein.
2 Paper No. 13, mailed January 5, 1998.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007