Appeal No. 2004-2317 Page 4
Application No. 09/771,938
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite in the recitation of “the article ‘a’ in the recitation ‘wherein the single
locus was stably inserted into a corn genome.’”
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite in the recitation of the phrases “yield enhancement,” “improved
nutritional quality,” and “enhanced yield stability.”
Claims 6, 11, 24, 25 and 27-31 stand rejected under the written
description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 27-30 stand rejected under the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The present “invention relates to inbred corn seed and plants of the variety
designated I015036, and derivatives and tissue cultures thereof.” Specification,
page 1. According to appellant (specification, page 27), “[a] description of the
physiological and morphological characteristics of corn plant I015036 is
presented in Table 3” of the specification, pages 27-29. On this
4 According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), “[c]laims … 27-30 … stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. [§] 112, second paragrarph…” The examiner, however, provides no explanation as to
why claim 29 is rejected. We can only assume that since claim 29, as well as claims 28 and 30,
each depend from claim 27, they are rejected for the same reason as claim 27. Accordingly, we
have included claims 28-30 with this ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007