Appeal No. 2004-0329 Page 8
Application No. 09/251,953
f) inspecting the seed to observe and supervise the harvesting, cleaning,
grading, bagging, and other processing operations, wherein
representative seed samples are taken from each seed lot after it has
been cleaned, bagged and prepared for sale; and
g) tagging the seed to demonstrate that the seed meets the specific
standards for the crop.
See id. at 451-52. Moreover, by following these practices, a purity of certified
seed of 99.5% is achieved. See id. at page 450, Fig. 20.2.
The method steps of Poehlman read on the method steps of the instantly
claimed invention. The only difference is that the method of Poehlman is drawn
to growing certified seed that is of sufficient genetic identity and purity such that it
will be approved by the certifying agency. The ADM article, as discussed above,
recognizes the nature of the problem to be solved—the separation and the
preservation of the identity of non-genetically modified crops. Therefore, it would
have been prima facie obvious to use the text-book methods of Poehlman to
solve the problem of ADM, that is, the separation and the preservation of the
identity of non-genetically modified crops. We thus affirm the rejection of claims
24-30, 35-39, 42, 45-51 and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of ADM and Poehlman.
Appellants argue with respect to the combination of ADM and Poehlman,
that ADM “briefly mentions physical separation of harvested crops, but does not
suggest any particular method of doing so.” Appeal Brief, page 9. Appellants
argue further that the combination “provide no reasonable expectation that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007