Appeal 2007-1026
Application 10/405,819
Claim 28
Claim 28 recites three culturing steps (a through c) in a maintenance
medium, followed by culturing (d) in a development medium. In step (a)
and (b), no GA is present in the medium. In step (c), however, GA is
present, but ABA is absent. No GA is present in the development medium
(d).
The Examiner contends that these steps are disclosed in Pullman’s
Example 1 (Answer 3). However, after thoroughly reviewing Example 1,
we are in agreement with Appellants that the steps in claim 28 are not taught
by Pullman. In particular, Pullman does not teach culturing in three
different maintenance medium, in which GA absent in the first two, but
present in the third as required by claim 28. To the contrary, Pullman
describes a first solid and a second liquid maintenance medium (col. 14.
ll. 55-67. Even if the singulation medium (col. 15, ll. 11-13 is considered to
be a maintenance medium, Pullman does not describe alternating the
gibberellin (steps (b), (c), and (d)) as required by the claim. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection of claim 28 under § 102(b).
Obviousness over Pullman
Claims 1-26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Pullman.
The Examiner asserts that it would have been routine to optimize the
experimental conditions described in Pullman to achieve the claimed subject
matter (Answer 4). In making this determination, the Examiner cites
Pullman which states:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013