Appeal 2007-0862
Application 10/680,675
indicative of specific quantifiable characteristics of plant
embryos. . . .
To the contrary, the present invention is directed to
developing a classification model . . . without requiring first
identifying what parameters or data are indicative of specific
quantifiable characteristics. . . . In other words, the method of
the present invention requires no pre-judgment that only the
embryo perimeter information is indicative of embryo quality,
and instead uses non-perimeter information also, such as
texture, color, and any pattern contained in the non-perimeter
pixels of an embryo image, in developing a classification
model.
(Br. 12).
Essentially, Appellants’ argument is that they have disclosed a method
of training a computer to recognize images of embryos that are most likely
to germinate; if it turns out that there are also visually recognizable
characteristics of embryos that are pathogen resistant, drought resistant, etc.,
then their patent should cover teaching computers to recognize them, too,
even though Appellants haven’t disclosed (presumably because they don’t
know) what to train the computer to look for.
We disagree. “Patent protection is granted in return for an enabling
disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that
may or may not be workable. . . . Tossing out the mere germ of an idea does
not constitute enabling disclosure.” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, Appellants have disclosed a method for using digital image data
to classify plant embryos according to their likelihood to germinate. They
have not, however, disclosed a method for using digital image data to
classify plant embryos according to any other quantifiable characteristics.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013