Appeal 2007-0862
Application 10/680,675
embryo organs were used as inputs, but the claims do not require any
particular level of accuracy. The Examiner has not adequately explained
why the claimed method could not be practiced without undue
experimentation using digital images of embryo organs.
That said, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims are
nonenabled because the Specification provides inadequate guidance with
respect to classifying embryos on the basis of characteristics other than
germination potential using the claimed method. (See, e.g., Answer 6, 7-8.)
Claim 14, for example, makes clear that the “quantifiable characteristics”
recited in claim 1 include “resistance to pathogens, drought resistance, heat
resistance, cold resistance, salt tolerance, preference for light quality, [and]
suitability for long-term storage.”
The Specification provides no guidance regarding what features of a
digital image of embryos or embryo organs are associated with any of these
characteristics. Nor does the Specification provide any working examples
that show the use of embryo images to classify plant embryos according to
any characteristic other than likelihood to germinate. In fact, the evidence of
record does not show there exist any features of plant embryo images that
can be used to classify embryos as resistant to pathogens, drought, etc.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that using the claimed method to
classify plant embryos according to characteristics other than likelihood to
germinate would likely require undue experimentation on the part of those
skilled in the art.
Appellants argue that
the present invention is not directed to requiring to first identify
a particular set of parameters or data that can be always used as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013