Appeal 2006-2166
Application 10/727,442
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument for the reasons
discussed below.
Wang discloses that “[a] carefully controlled fertilization program
ensures good plant growth” (Wang, 1002, col. 1). Wang further discloses
that fertilizers having differing nitrogen content were used in his study
(Wang 1602 col. 1; 1603, Table 2 and 3, Osmoscote (19N-3P-10K) and
water-soluble fertilizer (24N-3.5 P-13.3K)). Accordingly, Wang recognizes
that the chemical composition of the fertilizer, including the nitrogen
content, is an art recognized result effective variable such that it would have
been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even
optimum ranges for such art-recognized, result-effective parameters. In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-1937 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
From the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of Wang’s disclosure to adjust the fertilizer
composition, including the nitrogen content, to an optimum level for
fostering shoot growth.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 14
over Cuenca in view of Saul and Wang.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7, and 8 under § 103(a) over
Cuenca in view of Saul is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 9, 10, and 13 under § 103(a)
over Cuenca in view of Saul and Bryan is AFFIRMED.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013