Appeal 2007-2681
Application 10/680,676
as inputs included the “area of the cotyledons from the embryo end view,
and mean area of the cotyledons touching the bounding convex hull of the
embryo end view” (id. at 29: top line of the table).
Thus, the evidence of record appears to show that the morphological
features of portions of the embryo, and not just those of the embryo overall,
are important indicators of which embryos are likely to germinate. Granted,
the claimed method may not be as accurate if only the features of portions of
the embryo were used as inputs, but the claims do not require any particular
level of accuracy. The Examiner has not adequately explained why even the
claimed method could not be practiced without undue experimentation using
digital images of portions of plant embryos.
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, 8-9.)
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 of characteristic other than likelihood to germinate. In fact, the evidence
of record does not show there exist any features of plant embryo images that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013