Appeal No. 1999-1669
Application No. 08/816,756
compartments.” The examiner fails to mention that the seed, treated with growth and
protective substances, is deposited in a furrow through an atomizer. Moreover, while it is
not apparent from the abstract, the translation of the entire document shows that “the
purpose of the device is to make it possible to treat seed with protective and growth-
stimulating substances during the sowing operation,” thus fertilizer is applied to the seed
3
only in combination with a foamed protective substance.
According to the examiner, Ott “reflects that the claimed formulations were available
before the claimed invention and that the use of such material in the root zone of crops
from shortly before to shortly after planting was recommended,” while Onoprienko “placed
within the domain of the skilled artisan a process for planting seeds by the steps of forming
a furrow, depositing the seeds and treating and spraying the seeds in the furrow with a
liquid . . . fertilizer.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. On this basis, the examiner concludes
that “it would have been obvious . . . to have modified the use of the product lines of [Ott] by
using an available seed planting machine and adding to it any commercially available
liquid dispensing unit to plant and treat seeds . . . combin[ing] cultural operations like
sowing with fertilization in order to reduce labor expense and increase profitability.” Id.,
pages 4 and 5.
The statement of the rejection is flawed in that it does not address any claim
individually, moreover, is not clear which aspects of Ott and Onoprienko the examiner
3See n. 2, above.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007