Appeal No. 2004-2343 Page 16
Application No. 09/772,520
to a plant lacking the single locus. The metes and bounds of the claim are thus
fully understood by one of skill in the art and the use of the terms is not
indefinite.” On reflection, we agree with appellant. The fact that some claim
language is not mathematically precise does not per se render the claim
indefinite. Seattle Box. As set forth in Shatterproof Glass, “[i]f the claims, read in
the light of the specifications, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both of
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 24-2612
Claims 24-26 ultimately 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 24-26 are drawn to a hybrid plant or
12 We recognize, as does the examiner (Answer, page 22) that appellant’s reference to claims
22-26 (Brief, page 14) was intended to be a reference to claims 24 and 25.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007