Appeal No. 2004-2317 Page 16
Application No. 09/771,938
the utilization and scope of the invention, and if the language is as precise as the
subject matter permits, the courts can demand no more.” In our opinion, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the enhancement of
yield or yield stability and improved nutritional quality is relative to a plant lacking
the single locus.
Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Written Description:
Claims 6, 11, 24, 25 and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as the specification fails to adequately describe the claimed invention.
For the following reasons, we reverse.
Claims 24 and 2511
Claims 24 and 25 both depend from claim 23. On this record, the
examiner has indicated that claim 23 is allowable. Answer, page 2. The
examiner finds (Answer, page 16), claims 24 and 25 are drawn to a hybrid plant
or seed “produced by crossing inbred corn plant I015036 with any second,
distinct inbred corn plant.”
As we understand it, based on this construction of claims 24 and 25, the
examiner is of the opinion that since the hybrids inherit only ½ of their diploid12
set of chromosomes from the plant of corn variety I015036, a person of skill in
11 We recognize, as does the examiner (Answer, page 22) that appellant’s reference to claims
22-26 (Brief, page 13) was intended to be a reference to claims 24 and 25.
12 According to appellant’s specification (page 21), diploid means “a cell or organism having two
sets of chromosomes.”
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007