Appeal No. 2004-2317 Page 3
Application No. 09/771,938
starch; improved nutritional quality; enhanced yield stability; male sterility
and restoration of male fertility.
31.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Hunsperger et al. (Hunsperger) 5,523,520 Jun. 4, 1996
Eshed et al. (Eshed), “Less-Than-Additive Epistatic lnteractions of Quantitative
Trait Loci in Tomato,” Genetics, Vol. 143, pp. 1807-17 (1996)
Kraft et al. (Kraft), “Linkage Disequilibrium and Fingerprinting in Sugar Beet,”
Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Vol. 101, pp. 323-36 (2000)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite in the recitation of the phrase “an essentially homogeneous population
of seed.”
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite in the recitation of the phrase “[a]n essentially homogeneous population
of corn plants produced by growing the seed of the corn variety I015036.”
Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
as indefinite in the recitation of the phrase “in accordance with.”
Claims 15, and 17-203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as indefinite in the recitation of the phrase “capable of expressing.”
Claims 16 and 27-304 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as failing to limit the scope of the claims from which they depend.
3 According to the examiner (Answer, page 13), since claim 18 depends from claims 17 it is
included in this rejection. We also note, while the examiner lists (Answer, page 4) claim 19 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the examiner fails to explain the basis of this
rejection. Accordingly, we assume since claim 19 ultimately depends from claim 17, claim 19,
like claim 18, was intended to be included in this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007