Ex Parte Garing - Page 22


                     Appeal No.  2004-2343                                                                        Page 22                        
                     Application No.  09/772,520                                                                                                 
                     that both claims 6 and 11 ultimately depend from claim 517, which is drawn to “[a]                                          
                     corn plant produced by growing a seed of the corn variety I026458….”                                                        
                             It appears that the examiner may have read claims 6 and 11 as drawn to a                                            
                     corn plant or plant cell having only one of the recited profiles.  However, as we                                           
                     understand claims 6 and 11, determining whether the claimed corn plant (claim                                               
                     6) or plant cell (claim 11) has one of the profiles does not mean that the plant, or                                        
                     plant cell would not also exhibit the other profile.                                                                        
                             In addition, we direct the examiner’s attention to claims 6 and 11 of Appeal                                        
                     No. 2005-0396.  As we understand it, notwithstanding differences in the SSR and                                             
                     isozyme profiles, the disclosure in the specification as well as the language of the                                        
                     claims is substantially similar to that of the instant application.  Nevertheless, the                                      
                     examiner in Appeal No. 2005-0396 apparently found that appellant’s specification                                            
                     provided an adequate written description of the claimed invention as no rejection                                           
                     of claims 6 and 11 was made under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C.                                            
                     § 112, first paragraph in Appeal No. 2005-0396.  Accordingly, we find that the                                              
                     examiner has treated claims 6 and 11 in a manner that is inconsistent with the                                              
                     prosecution of similar claims in related application 10/077,589, which is the                                               
                     subject matter of Appeal No. 2005-0396.                                                                                     
                             For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by the examiner’s                                                   
                     arguments.                                                                                                                  
                                                                Claims 27-30                                                                     
                             According to the examiner (Answer, page 18), “[c]laims 27-30 are drawn                                              
                     towards I026458 plants further comprising a single locus conversion, or wherein                                             
                                                                                                                                                 
                     17 The examiner has indicated that claim 5 is allowable.  Answer, page 2.                                                   




Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007