Ex Parte Ibes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 10, 2005

09733020 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WILHELMUS IBES
__________
Appeal No. 2004-0447
Application No. 09/733,020
__________
VACATUR AND REMAND
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
This appeal involves plant patent Application No. 09/733,020. The question
raised in this appeal involves whether evidence of foreign sales of the claimed
reproducible plant variety may enable an otherwise non-enabled printed publication
disclosing the plant, thereby creating a bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered that issue in In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125,
72 USPQ2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and held in the affirmative. Id. at 1128, 72 USPQ2d
at 1041. In so holding, the court stated that “[t]he foreign sale must not be an
obscure, solitary occurrence that would go unnoticed by those skilled in the art.” Id. at
1131, 72 USPQ2d at 1043. The court also stated that the record did not establish that
“even if the interested public would readily know of the foreign sales, those sales
enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the claimed plants without undue
Appeal No. 2004-0447
Application No. 09/733,020
Page 2
experimentation.” Id. Thus, the court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the
case for “further factual findings relating to the accessibility of the foreign sales of the
claimed plants and the reproducibility of the claimed plants from the plants that were
sold.”Id.
In this case, the examiner is relying upon applicant’s admission that the claimed
plant “was sold outside the United States on or about March 1, 1999" as evidence that
PBR 981669 (European Union) is enabled. Examiner’s Answer, page 4. However,
there is no evidence whether the sales were of the type that would be noticed by those
of skill in the art. Nor has the other issue raised by the Federal Circuit in Elsner,
whether the sales would enable one skilled in the art to reproduce the claimed plant
without undue experimentation, been addressed.
Accordingly, we vacate the examiner’s rejection and remand the case to the
examiner to determine whether the sales of the claimed plant (1) were “an obscure,
solitary occurrence that would go unnoticed by those skilled in the art” and (2) would
enable one to reproduce the plant without undue experimentation.
VACATED; REMANDED
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2004-0447
Application No. 09/733,020
Page 3
Russell D. Orkin
Webb, Ziesenheim, Logsdon,
Orkin & Hanson, PC
700 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1818
dem