Appeal No. 2004-1968 Page 24
Application No. 10/000,311
As discussed supra, the examiner has interpreted these claims as directed
to the product of a single cross of a LH321 plant and a non-LH321 plant. See
Answer, page 5, and 27. Accordingly, as we understand this record, claims 12-
16 are drawn to F1 hybrid seed, plant, or plant parts. The claims do not require
the hybrid to express any particular morphological or physiological characteristic.
Nor do the claims require that a particular non-LH321 corn variety be used. All
that is required by the claims is that the F1 hybrid has one parent that is a plant of
corn variety LH321.
Since the examiner has indicated that the seed and the plant of the inbred
line LH321 are allowable (see claims 1 and 2), there can be no doubt that the
specification provides an adequate written description of this inbred corn line. In
addition, the examiner recognizes (Answer, page 7) that appellant’s specification
describes four exemplary hybrids wherein one parent was a plant of the inbred
corn line LH321, see e.g., specification, pages 31-33. Accordingly, it is unclear
to this merits panel what additional enabling description is necessary. In our
opinion, appellant’s specification provides an enabling description of F1 hybrids
wherein one parent is a corn plant of the LH321 inbred line.
Claims 17-19, 21, 24, 30 and 31:
We understand these claims to be drawn to methods of producing plants
derived from LH321. Stated differently, the claims are drawn to methods of using
LH321 inbred corn plants as the starting material to produce other inbred lines.
In our opinion, it matters not what the other corn plants are, or what the progeny
of a cross between the LH321 inbred line and some other corn plant represents.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007