Appeal 2006-2166
Application 10/727,442
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS OVER CUENCA IN VIEW OF SAUL
AND BRYAN, AND CUENCA IN VIEW OF SAUL, BRYAN AND
APPELLANT’S SPECIFICATION
Appellant does not separately argue the § 103(a) rejections over
Cuenca in view of Saul and Bryan, or Cuenca in view of Saul, Bryan, and
Appellant’s Specification. Rather, Appellant relies on his arguments made
regarding Cuenca and Saul with respect to claim 1. We are unpersuaded by
those arguments for the same reasons we stated in our discussion regarding
claim 1 (See our above discussion in the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
OVER CUENCA IN VIEW OF SAUL section).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims
2-6, 9, 10, and 13 over Cuenca in view of Saul and Bryan, and the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 11 and 12 over Cuenca in view of
Saul, Bryan, and Appellant’s Specification.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER CUENCA IN VIEW OF SAUL
AND WANG
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 14 as
previously made with respect to claim 1. We are unpersuaded by those
arguments for the same reasons we stated in our discussion of claim 1 (See
our above discussion in the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER
CUENCA IN VIEW OF SAUL section).
Appellant further argues that Wang teaches away from the claimed
invention because “it teaches that the use of N fertilizer improves the growth
of cuttings, in contrast to the claimed invention which recites the use of
fertilizer with very low levels or no nitrogen” (Br. 15).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013