Appeal No. 1999-1669
Application No. 08/816,756
proposes to modify and/or combine, much less why. Independent claims 1 and 12 require
depositing seeds in soil, and applying an unatomized aqueous ammoniacal ionic solution
of a metal alkanoate directly to the seeds, in an amount effective to stimulate root growth;
independent claim 8 requires treating seeds, prior to planting, with the same aqueous
solution.
Ott never uses the ammoniacal ionic solution of zinc carboxylate without first diluting
it in anhydrous ammonia, and does not apply even the diluted solution to seeds directly;
Onoprienko applies fertilizer (of unspecified formula) to seeds, but always in combination
with a foamed protective substance, and always in atomized form. Presumably, under the
examiner’s rationale, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to refrain from
diluting Ott’s ionic solution of zinc carboxylate in anhydrous liquid ammonia; to apply the
undiluted solution directly to seeds, instead of soil; and to apply it in unatomized form.
Nevertheless, the examiner fails to identify anything in the prior art which would have led a
person having ordinary skill in the art to do so. While one would recognize from
Onoprienko that some fertilizers can be applied to seed during sowing, rather than to the
soil before or after sowing, this fact alone does not provide a reason, suggestion or
motivation to modify Ott’s formulation and application protocol in the manner required by
4
the claims.
4As stated in Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,
1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted), “It is well-established
that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination of
(continued...)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007