Appeal No. 1999-1298
Application No. 08/667,167
content is a broad range. “Drying back” as taught by the prior art,
would reduce the moisture [content] of [a] seed to a safe storage
moisture level; a level at which the pre-germinative changes in
enzyme and metabolic activity are slowed or halted, to achieve the
stated object of increasing the storage longevity of seed, like the 9%
taught by Rowse, line 65, column 7.
Upon review of this record, we note that Rowse, Hegarty and Bradford are
the only references relied upon that teach drying back “primed non-germinated
seeds.” In fact, Rowse disclose a process of “priming” seeds, and discloses at
column 1, lines14-17 that “[m]ethods involving partial hydration of the seeds followed
by drying back to the original moisture content are sometimes referred to as ‘Seed
Hardening’…. Seed priming can be carried out by partial hydration … after which
the seeds may be dried back to their original water content.” Stated differently, the
seeds are dried back ~100% units lower than the moisture content of nonincubated
primed non-germinated seeds, back to their original water content prior to priming.
The examiner directs our attention (Answer, page 17) to Rowse, column 7,
line 65, wherein the primed seeds are “dried back to 9% water content.” However,
we note, as do appellants (Brief, page 11) that by drying back the seeds to a water
content of 9%, the water content of the dried back seeds is the same as the seeds’
original water content. See, Rowse, column 7, lines 50-51. Therefore, although
Rowse discloses (column 3, lines18-22) that seeds can be dried back to a lower
water content to facilitate storage after priming, there is no disclosure of a lower
water content in the range of appellants’ claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007