Appeal No. 1999-1298
Application No. 08/667,167
While, as the examiner represents (Answer, page 6), Bradford teach “the
processes of priming, [and] redrying, ‘a process termed ‘hardening’’…” the
examiner failed to explain the nexus between this reference, and moisture content in
the range of appellants’ claimed invention. The same is true of Hegarty, relied on by
the examiner (id.) to teach “that raising then lowering the moisture level of seeds,
before radicle emergence, is tolerated by and may even benefit seeds.”
Bewley and Hartmann fail to make up for the deficiencies in the references
discussed above. As appellants point out (Brief, page 12) neither reference is
concerned with the moisture content of primed non-germinated seeds.
We note that Finch-Savage disclose a process of priming seeds and then
drying the seeds to a moisture content of “around 20% or less, e.g. 15% being
preferred.” Finch-Savage, column 6, lines 49-59. However, Finch-Savage is
concerned with germinated seeds (see e.g., abstract, and column 5, line 62), not
“primed non-germinated seeds” according to the claimed invention. The examiner
failed to explain the nexus between this reference and the claimed invention.
While we do not disagree with the examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 16)
that “[d]rying back seed[s] to ensure safe storage for longer periods is routine to the
seedsman,” we can not agree with the examiner’s position that the combination of
references relied upon render appellants’ claimed invention prima facie obvious.
Prima facie obviousness based on a combination of references requires that the
prior art provide “a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor to combine
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007