The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte William D. Griffith
__________
Appeal No. 2004-19681
Application No. 10/000,311
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before SCHEINER, ADAMS and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 6, 12-19, 21, 24, 26-28 and 30-31. The
examiner has indicated that claims 1-5, 7 and 9-11 are allowable. Page 3, Final
Rejection, mailed July 1, 2003. Claims 20, 22, 23, 25, 29 and 32 are cancelled.
The only remaining pending claim is claim 8. While appellant recognizes (Brief,
page 2) that claim 8 was rejected in the Final Office Action2, appellant does not
1 This appeal is substantially similar to Appeal No. 2004-1503, Application No. 09/606,808;
Appeal No. 2004-1506; Application No. 09/788,334; Appeal No. 2004-2317, Application No.
09/771,938; Appeal No. 2004-2343, Application No. 09/772,520; and Appeal No. 2005-0396,
Application No. 10/077,589, which all share the same assignee, Monsanto Company, the parent
of wholly-owned subsidiary DeKalb Genetics Corporation. Accordingly we have considered
these appeals together.
2 According to the examiner (page 3, Final Rejection, mailed July 1, 2003), claim 8 remains
“rejected under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention, as
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007