Appeal No. 2004-2343 Page 3
Application No. 09/772,520
starch; improved nutritional quality; enhanced yield stability; male sterility
and restoration of male fertility.
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 I026458.”
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.”
3 According to the examiner (Answer, pages 12 and 13), since claims 18 and 19 depend from
claim 17 they are 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