Ex Parte Proctor

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2008

09773303 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte POD-NERS, L.L.C.
____________________

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079
Technology Center 1600
____________________

Decided: 29 April 2008
____________________

Before TEDDY S. GRON, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CAROL A. SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

2
I. Statement of the Case
Appellant appeals pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 306 from the
final rejection of claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64. Claims 16-50, 53, and 65-
71, the only other pending claims, have been withdrawn from consideration
(App. Br.,1 3; Ans.,2 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a variety of common field bean
Phaseolus vulgaris plants and seeds, propagation material, progeny and
hybrids thereof. Claims 1-4 read (App. Br., 25):
1. A Phaseolus vulgaris field bean seed
designated Enola as deposited with the American
Type Culture Collection under accession number
209549.
2. A field bean plant produced by growing the
seed of claim 1.
3. Pollen of the plant of claim 2.
4. A field bean plant having all the
physiological and morphological characteristics of
the field bean plant of claim 2.
Claims 5-7 recited methods of producing a field bean plant by crossing a
first parent field bean plant with a second parent field bean plant, wherein
the first parent field bean plant or the second parent field bean plant or both
are the field bean plants of claim 2, respectively (App. Br., 25). Claims 8
and 62 read (App. Br., 26 and 32):

1 Appeal Brief filed 23 October 2006 ("App. Br.").
2 Examiner's Answer mailed 13 March 2007 ("Ans.).
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

3
8. A field bean variety of Phaseolus vulgaris
that produces seed having a seed coat that is
yellow in color, wherein the yellow color is from
about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the
Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural
light.
62. Seed from [a] field bean variety of
Phaselous vulgaris having a germplasm for
expressing a seed coat that is yellow in color as
evidenced by a substantially uniform yellow color
of the seed coat, wherein the substantially uniform
yellow color plotted as a distribution in a
population of the seed of sufficient number for
purposes of ATCC deposit has a peak occurrence
ranging from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y
8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in
natural light.
Claims 59-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of original descriptive support. Claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate
written descriptive support and for lack of enablement. Claims 1-7 and 59-
64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over prior art.
[Ans., 8, 12, 18, and 20-21.3]

3 The Examiner's Answer contains a typograhical error on pages 12 and 20.
On both pages the rejection is incorrectly said to be directed to claims 1-15,
51, 52, and 56-58. The correct claims are recited in the rejections in the
Final Office action mailed 14 April 2005 ("FR") at pages 10-11 and 16.
Furthermore, Appellant addressed claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 in both its
App. Br. (see e.g., 3) and Reply Brief filed 14 May 2007 ("Reply Br.") (see
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

4
II. Findings of Fact (FF)
The following findings of fact, and those set forth in the discussion,
are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record.
[1] On October 15, 1996, Larry M. Proctor filed application 9700027 for
a plant variety protection certificate ("the PVP 027 application") on a
common field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) variety named "Enola."
[2] The real party-in-interest of the PVP 027 application is said to be
POD-NERS, L.L.C.
[3] On November 15, 1996, Larry M. Proctor filed application
08/749,449 for a utility patent ("the 449 application") entitled "Field
Bean Cultivar Named Enola."
[4] The real party-in-interest of the 449 application is said to be POD-
NERS, L.L.C. (App. Br., 2).
[5] The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) received a viable
sample of Phaseolis vulgaris [sic] Enola seeds on behalf of Larry
Proctor, resulting in ATCC deposit designation 209549, on December
11, 1997 ("ATCC 209549").
[6] On April 13, 1999, the 449 application issued as U.S. Patent
5,894,079 ("the 079 patent").
[7] On May 28, 1999, a Plant Variety Protection Certificate was issued on
the PVP 027 application.

e.g., 2). Therefore, since these two typographical errors in the Examiner's
Answer do not appear to have prejudiced Appellant, we address both the
§ 112, first paragraph (enablement), and § 102/§ 103 final rejections of
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 on the merits.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

5
[8] On December 20, 2000, a request for reexamination of the 079 patent
was filed by a third party requester and the resulting reexamination
proceeding was assigned Control No. 90/005,892 ("the 892 reexam
application").
[9] A request to reissue the 079 patent was filed by POD-NERS, L.L.C.
on January 31, 2001, and was assigned application no. 09/773,303
("the 303 reissue application").
[10] Reexamination of the 079 patent was ordered on February 6, 2001.
[11] The reexamination and reissue proceedings were merged on June 13,
2001.
[12] On May 22, 2001, a certificate of correction was issued for errors in
the issued 079 patent, specifically at column 2, line 49, and at column
6, line 55.4
A. The 079 patent ("Spec.")
[13] According to the 079 patent, a package of dry edible beans was
purchased in Mexico in 1994 and brought to the United States (Spec.,
2:63-65).
[14] The package of beans was said to contain a variety of beans including
brown, black, yellow, and pinto beans (Spec., 2:63-67).
[15] Later in 1994, the yellow beans were said to be have been selected
from the package, planted in Montrose County, Colorado, and allowed
to self-pollinate (Spec., 2:67 through 3:3).

4 Appellant has requested an Examiner's Amendment to change "not" to
"now" at column 4, line 60, of the 079 patent specification (App. Br., 9).
The Examiner stated that she will amend the application as requested "[i]f
there is a determination of allowable subject matter" (Ans., 35-36).
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

6
[16] Resulting plants (the first planting) said to have "small leaves, good
adherence of the pod to the branches of the plant, as well as resistance
to pod shattering, were selected and harvested individually" (Spec.,
3:10-13).
[17] The seeds selectively harvested in 1994 were said to have been
planted in Montrose County, Colorado, in 1995 and allowed to self-
pollinate (Spec., 3:14-15).
[18] Resulting plants (the second planting) said to have "good adherence of
the pod to the branches of the plant, resistance to pod shattering and
yields greater than the average yield of an average commercial bean
plant (the average commercial pinto bean plant yields approximately
3.1 pinto beans per pod) were selected and harvested individually"
(Spec., 3:15-22).
[19] The seeds selectively harvested in 1995 were said to have been
planted in Montrose County, Colorado, in 1996 and allowed to self-
pollinate (Spec., 3:23-24).
[20] Resulting plants (the third planting) said to have "good adherence of
the pod to the plant, higher yield, and resistance to pod shattering
were selected and harvested and bulked to produce the [Enola]
cultivar" (Spec., 3:24-39, bracketed text added).
[21] According to the 079 patent specification, the "Enola seed possesses a
unique yellow color, matching most closely to 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to 7.5 Y
8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color, when viewed in natural light"
(Spec., 3:32-34).
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

7
[22] The "distinctive" yellow color of the Enola seed is said to be present
throughout the entire seed coat and to remain uniform and stable
season after season when viewed in natural lighting (Spec., 1:46-51;
2:58-62; 3:32-39; and, 4:30-32).
[23] The hilar ring of the Enola seed is said to be "tan/yellow in color,
matching most closely 2.5 Y 9/4 to 2.5Y 9/6 in the Munsell Book of
Color, when viewed in natural light" (Spec., 3:39-41).
[24] According to the 079 patent, "[n]o variant traits have been observed or
are expected in Enola" (Spec., 4:36-37).
[25] Further according to the 079 patent, "[t]he terminology used herein to
describe Enola are those used by the Plant Variety Protection Office,
unless otherwise noted, in Exhibit C, 'Objective Description of the
Variety Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [sic, ']" (Spec., 4:60-64).
[26] Additional morphological and physiological characteristics of Enola
are said to include (Spec., 5:1-51):
growth habit determinate (in bush
form)
color of flower white
seeds/pod approximately 3.1
seed shape cuboid (when seed taken
from middle of pod)
weight/100 seeds 43 gr (adjusted to 12%
moisture)
physio. maturity 101 days.

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

8
B. The Plant Variety Protection 027 Application
[27] The PVP 027 application states that the mature seed color is slightly
variable between seasons and ranges from Munsell 5.0Y 8.5/4.0 to
7.5Y 8.0/8.0 when viewed in natural light (PVP 027 application, § II).
[28] The PVP 027 application further states that the mature hilar ring is
tan/yellow in color and ranges from Munsell 2.5Y 9/4 to 2.5Y 9/6
(PVP 027 application, § II).
[29] According to the PVP 027 application, "[t]he yellow bean, 'ENOLA'
var., is most likely developed from a landrace form [sic, of] the
azufrado-type varieties" (PVP 027 application, EXHIBIT A, as
amended January 23, 1999).
[30] Further according to the PVP 027 application,
ENOLA, most closely resembles a variety of bean
known as Pimono 78 (Mayacoba) in seed color and
shape, plant architecture, leaf size and root
structure. However, ENOLA differs from Pimono
78 in that the green color of the leaves is
significantly lighter than the Pimono 78. The
leaves of the ENOLA variety are 5.0GY 5/6 [based
on MUNSELL BOOK OF COLOR] color
reference system compared with the Pimono 78
which are 5GY 4/4 [based on MUNSELL BOOK
OF COLOR] color reference system; the ENOLA
are richer in green-yellow, and lighter than the
Pimono 78. This difference between ENOLA var.
and the Pimono 78 var., is stable regardless of the
growing season. [PVP 027 application, EXHIBIT
B, as amended 1-23-99, including bracketed text.]

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

9
III. Discussion
A. Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
1. claims 59-64 (written description)
It is the Examiner's position that the subject matter of claims 59 and
62, and claims dependent thereon, lacks original descriptive support in the
079 patent specification for the newly recited limitations "wherein the
yellow color plotted as a distribution in a population of the seed of sufficient
number for purposes of ATCC deposit has a peak occurrence ranging from
about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when
viewed in natural light" (claim 59) and "wherein the substantially uniform
yellow color plotted as a distribution in a population of the seed of sufficient
number for purposes of ATCC deposit has a peak occurrence ranging from
about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when
viewed in natural light" (claim 62) (FR 3-4; Ans., 7-8). According to the
Examiner, the specification repeatedly states that Enola seeds are of a
uniformly distinct, seasonally-stable, unique yellow color that matches most
closely to 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color, when
viewed in natural light, whereas claims 59 and 62 encompass any seed that
would fall within a distribution of yellow colored seed, e.g., "any seed
having a seed coat of any shade of yellow" (Ans., 28-29).
Appellant argues that the seed coat color of Enola inherently exists as
"a distribution in a population of the seed of sufficient number for purposes
of ATCC deposit . . . [having] a peak occurrence from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to
about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural
light" (App. Br., 7; Reply Br., 4-5). According to Appellant, the distribution
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

10
of color in any sample of seeds of a cultivar5 is a statistical representation of
normal phenotypic6 variance expected to be found in non-cloned organisms
as evidenced by the internet article "Quantitative Genetics"7 and by charts 15
and 31 in the Waibel Declaration8 (App. Br., 7-8; Reply Br., 5). Appellant
argues that a deposit, i.e., ATCC 209549, may be claimed according to a
description of properties that are inherent to the deposit, even if those
properties are not disclosed in haec verba in the original specification (App.
Br., 7; Reply Br., 4-5).
"The function of the description requirement [of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112] is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the
filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262 (CCPA 1976). The
written description requirement of § 112 is satisfied if "the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventor [Appellant] had possession at time of the later claimed subject
matter." In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (agreeing with
and quoting the Board's statement). Precisely how close the original

5 A cultivar is a cultivated plant that has been selected for its desirable
characteristics that distinguish it from otherwise similar plants of the same
species and which retains those characteristics when propagated (see e.g.,
FR, 6).
6 Phenotype refers to the visible physical or biochemical characteristics of an
organism as determined by both genotype and environment.
7 "Quantitative Genetics," (July 18, 2005),
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4241F_Quantitative_Genetics.html.
8 The ten page Declaration of Gil Waibel under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 executed
October 7, 2002, and appended forty-eight charts ("Waibel Declaration").
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

11
description must be to the claim language to comply with the description
requirement of § 112 is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Here, the subject matter of claims 59-64 encompasses seeds produced
by common field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) having a seed coat with a
certain average yellow color, whether that yellow color is the primary or
only color; and, whether the yellow color is substantially solid, splashed,
mottled, striped, flecked or dotted throughout the seed coat. The average
yellow color may represent a very narrow or a very broad peak of color
distribution. In contrast, the original disclosure of the 079 patent purports to
describe seeds from a single common field bean cultivar designated "Enola"
having a yellow color uniformly present throughout the seed coat with no
particularly defined peak distribution.
The original disclosure of the 079 patent does not statistically analyze
phenotypic traits. Appellant has not pointed to evidence of record, e.g.,
expert testimony, which establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably understood Enola seeds to possess an inherent
"yellow color plotted as a distribution in a population of seed of sufficient
number for purposes of ATCC deposit [that] has a peak occurrence ranging
from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color
when viewed in natural light" or any other distribution based on a fair
reading of the 079 patent disclosure. In addition, the original disclosure of
the 079 patent does not define a population of seed "of sufficient number for
purposes of ATCC deposit" as of its November 15, 1996 filing date, and
Appellant has not pointed to evidence that the term was a recognized term of
art.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

12
Appellant relies on two pieces of evidence in support of its inherency
argument -- the Waibel Declaration, executed October 7, 2002, and an
internet article entitled "Quantitative Genetics," printed on July 18, 2005.
Neither establishes the state of the art with respect to statistical
representations of observable (phenotypic) traits, e.g., seed coat color, of a
cultivar on November 15, 1996, or the recognized statistical characteristics
of "a sufficient [seed] number for purposes of ATCC deposit," e.g., ATCC
209549, at that time.
[31] Section 42, "Primary color specific," of the Waibel Declaration reads
The PVP application defines the seed coat color
for Enola to be Munsell 5Y 8.5/4 to 7.5Y 8/8. In
studies 1 and 3 (charts 31 and 15), most of the seed
coat color for Enola, and Yellow River's 2001 crop
and 2002 crop lots showed the PVP defined seed
coat colors.
The Waibel Declaration suggests that the yellow color distribution of the
seed coat of Enola is broader than the ranges recited in claims 59 and 62 or
disclosed in the 079 patent specification. However, Appellant does not
explain how this testimony demonstrates that the original disclosure of the
079 patent inherently describes the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it
is unclear how the data in charts 15 and 31 of the Waibel Declaration were
generated, how the data was used to determine Munsell values, what the
significance of the values in the plant art is, and/or whether the data was
collected from a number of seeds sufficient for purposes of ATCC deposit.
[32] According to the "Quantitative Genetics" internet article at page 8, a
number of tools are used in quantitative genetics, including statistics,
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

13
which is said to measure central tendency (i.e., the average value of a
group) and dispersion (i.e., how much something differs from the
average value).
Appellant has not explained how the "Quantitative Genetics" internet article
establishes an alleged inherent yellow color distribution as claimed in Enola
seeds, generally, or in ATCC 209549, specifically. At best, the Waibel
Declaration and the "Quantitative Genetics" internet article support the
general proposition that some variation in observable traits naturally exists
in non-clonal organisms. In short, Appellant has not established that the
original disclosure of the 079 patent would have reasonably conveyed to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time that Proctor had possession of the
subject matter of claims 59-64.
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the rejection claims 59-64 under
§ 112, first paragraph, for noncompliance with its written description
requirement.
2. claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 (written description)
It is the Examiner's position that the subject matter of claims 1-15, 51,
52, and 56-64 is not adequately described in the 079 patent as required by 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (FR, 4; Ans., 8). The Examiner separates the
claims into two groups, one generic (claims 8-15, 51, 52, and 56-64) and the
other specific to ATCC 209549 (claims 1-7). According to the Examiner,
Enola cultivar defined by the seeds of ATCC 209549 is insufficient to
describe the genus of Phaseolus vulgaris field bean varieties, as well as
seed, pollen and propagation material therefrom, that produce seed having a
yellow seed coat from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y8.5/6 in the Munsell
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

14
Book of Color when viewed in natural light, as broadly claimed in claims 8-
15, 51, 52, and 56-64 (FR 11-12; Ans., 8-12). Further according to the
Examiner, the description of the seeds as deposit ATCC 209549 in the 079
patent is inconsistent with description elsewhere in the record (Ans., 12 and
30-32). Specifically, the Examiner maintains that the Conley Declaration9
submitted by Appellant describes the seeds in ATCC 209549 as genetically
and phenotypically diverse, whereas the 079 patent describes them as having
the single set of morphological characteristics at column 4, line 59, to
column 5, line 51 (Ans., 9). According to the Examiner, Appellant's
assertions contradict both its own statements that the Enola phenotype is
stable and uniform in multiple environments (App. Br. 14) and statements in
the 079 specification that no variant traits have been or are expected in Enola
(FF 24; FR 6-8). Finally, the Examiner maintains that Appellant "has not
identified what feature or features distinguish the claimed seed from other
known Phaseolus vulgaris seeds" (FR, 6).
Appellant argues that possession of the invention of claims 1-15, 51,
52, and 56-64 has been demonstrated by (1) ATCC 209549, (2) the uniform
and stable traits of Enola recited in the description and claims, and (3) an
actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention, demonstrated by
ATCC 209549 and documented in the drawings/photos of the patent
application (Reply Br., 7). Appellant further argues that its Enola cultivar is
not composed of cloned plants, but rather a "true to type" cultivar with stable
and uniform traits (Reply Br., 9).

9 Declaration of Laura L. Conley under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, executed March
25, 2003 ("Conley Declaration").
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

15
As explained in University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d
1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
[t]o fulfill the written description requirement, a
patent specification must describe an invention and
do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can clearly conclude that the "the inventor
invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v.
American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41
USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872
F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow
persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that
[the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus,
an applicant complies with the written description
requirement "by describing the invention, with all
its claimed limitations, not that which makes it
obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as
words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc.,
that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood,
107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
In other words, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention. Vas-
Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
"Application of the written description requirement, however, is not
subsumed by the 'possession' inquiry. A showing of 'possession' is ancillary
to the statutory mandate that '[t]he specification shall contain a written
description of the invention,' and that requirement is not met if, despite a
showing of possession, the specification does not adequately describe the
claimed invention." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956,
969 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "For biological inventions, for which providing a
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

16
description in written form is not practicable, one may nevertheless comply
with the written description requirement by publicly depositing the
biological material. . . . That compliance is grounded on the fact of the
deposit and the accession number in the specification, not because a
reduction to practice has occurred." Id., 323 F.3d at 970.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting evidence or
reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure
a description of the invention defined by the claims. In re Alton, 76 F.3d
1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996). According to the Examiner,
the claimed invention is not fully described in the
specification, as evidenced by Appellant's
arguments and the Declarations of Conley with
reference to Gepts. It appears that Appellant
intends to claim a large genus of genotypes and
phenotypes that have not been described in the
specification, given Appellant's own assertions that
the seed deposit comprises phenotypically varied
seeds, and given the amendment of claims 59 and
62 to read on seeds that are not within the range of
7.5Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book
of Color. [Ans., 35.]
Thus, there are two issues before us -- first, as to claims 1-7, whether
all the seeds in ATCC 209549 are Enola; and second, whether ATCC
209549 provides generic descriptive support for claims 8-15, 51, 52, and 56-
64.
[33] Laura Conley gave opinions on the application of molecular markers
to plant breeding in the field of plant molecular biology (Conley
Declaration, ¶ 1).
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

17
[34] According to Ms. Conley, Enola is genetically diverse and contains at
least four distinct haplotypes10 (Conley Declaration, ¶ 22).
Additionally, at oral hearing, Appellant's counsel indicated that Enola has a
"very large number of phenotypic traits" (Tr.,11 5:12-16) and that efforts at
identifying factors that distinguish Enola from other plants have more or less
been limited to the color of the seed and the hilar ring (Tr., 8:13-19).
According to counsel, the 079 patent "on its face does not make any effort to
disclose phenotypic variations" (Tr., 9:4-5). For example,
MR. LEE: There is a group of seeds in an ATCC
deposit. As we have told her [the Examiner], none
of those seeds is exactly the same, but they're all
Enolas. I mean, if you take any Enola, the very
best stuff. I mean, you've grown it carefully,
haven't let it get cross-pollinated.
One could say that is the stuff that is in the
patent, as a matter of fact. But putting that aside,
you have in the ATCC deposit Enola.
JUDGE GRON: So if we send away to this
depository and we say, I want one of the seeds, and
they send you one, it may or may not be one that
falls within, for example, the scope of claim 10,
the scope of claim 5. May or may not.
MR. LEE: It probably will.
JUDGE GRON: It probably will but it may not.

10 Haplotype refers to the allelic constitution of several loci on a single
chromosome.
11 Transcript of Oral Hearing held January 16, 2008 ("Tr.").
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

18
MR. LEE: That is possible. But if it falls outside
the scope of our claims, it is not infringing.
JUDGE GRON: It is not enabled, however.
Because they went to the deposit, they got them to
send them a piece of seed, and it doesn't meet
those claims.
MR. LEE: Well, there are many others that do.
[Tr., 11:2-19, bracketed text added.]
However, according to statements in the 079 patent (FF 24) and by
Appellant (see e.g., App. Br. 14), no variant traits have been or are expected
in Enola, i.e., its phenotype is stable and uniform in multiple environments.
In view of the Conley Declaration and the conflicting statements above, the
Examiner has provided a sufficient basis for questioning whether all the
seeds in ATCC 209549 are Enola and whether the 079 patent specification
describes uniform and stable traits which distinguish Enola from its
antecedents and related known varieties of common field beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris, i.e., whether ATCC 209549 provides generic support for claims 8-
15, 51, 52, and 56-64. Under these circumstances, possession of a seed
sample as demonstrated by ATCC 209549 is insufficient to satisfy the
statutory mandate that the specification contain a written description of the
invention. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 323 F.3d at 969. Appellant has not shown
otherwise.
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-15, 51,
52, and 56-64 under § 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written
descriptive support.

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

19
3. claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 (enablement)
According to the Examiner, the full scope of claims 1-15, 51, 52, and
56-58 is not enabled by the 079 patent disclosure because it would require
undue experimentation to make and use the claimed invention in view of (i)
the genotypic and phenotypic diversity of the seeds ATCC 209549 (FR, 11;
Ans. 15-16, citing the Conley Declaration as well as the Waibel Declaration
(Ans. 37)) and (ii) statements "in the response filed March 25, 2003 that
'[P]rior to that trip [to Mexico], the applicant has never seen yellow beans,
either in Mexico or the United States' (response filed March 25, 2003, page
14, fourth paragraph)" (Ans. 16-17, original bracketed text). Further
according to the Examiner, "without a readily available source of germplasm
containing the yellow seed coat characteristics, undue trial and error
experimentation would be required to screen through the myriad of
Phaseolus vulgaris plants available in the world, and progeny plants derived
therefrom, to identify other field bean plants with the claimed
characteristics" (Ans. 17). Still further according to the Examiner, Appellant
has "not identified any selected traits that are stable and uniform and that
differentiate the claimed seeds and plants from other known Phaseolus
vulgaris seeds and plants" (FR, 11-12; Ans. 37) and, thus, "the deposit of a
phenotypically varied population of seeds does not allow one of skill in the
art to reproduce the same invention disclosed by Appellant in the
specification" (FR, 12-13; Ans. 38).
Appellant relies on ATCC 209549 for purposes of meeting the
enablement requirement (App. Br. 13). According to Appellant, "[e]ach and
every seed on deposit belongs to the Enola cultivar. Therefore, one of
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

20
ordinary skill in the art could easily reproduce the claimed invention, for
example, by accessing the ATCC deposit, as any seed on deposit would
produce a plant of the claimed cultivar" (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 10). As to
the Waibel Declaration, Appellant suggests that "the most likely reason for
the discrepancy between the text of point #42 and charts 15 and 31 is a
typographical error in the Declaration of Gil Waibel at point # 42, . . .
however, Appellant is not in a position to speak on behalf of Mr. Waibel"
(Reply Br. 9-10).
The description requirement is separate from the enablement
requirement of § 112, first paragraph. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963; Vas-
Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563 (recognizing the severability of the "written
description" and "enablement" provisions of § 112, first paragraph).
"When rejecting a claim under the enablement requirement of section
112, the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation
as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is
not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the
specification of the application. . .". In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). "That some experimentation is necessary does not constitute a
lack of enablement; the amount of experimentation, however, must not be
unduly extensive." Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927
F.2d 1200, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "Whether undue experimentation is
needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a
conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations." In re Wands,
858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A number of factors are relevant to
whether undue experimentation would be required to practice the claimed
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

21
invention, including "(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the
amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of
working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior
art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or
unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims." Id., 858 F.2d at
737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, the 079 patent discloses selective breeding of yellow beans from
a package of dry edible beans purchased in Mexico through three plantings
(FF 13-20) which is said to have resulted in "Enola" seed having a
"distinctive" yellow color matching most closely to 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to 7.5 y 8.5/6
in the Munsell Book of Color, when viewed in natural light, which color is
said to remain uniform and stable season after season (FF 21-22). A sample
of Enola seed was deposited as ATCC 209549 (FF 5). Appellant relies on
ATCC 209549 to satisfy the enablement requirement of § 112, first
paragraph (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 10). However, as noted by the Examiner
(Ans. 16-17), Appellant has stated that prior to the trip to Mexico where the
"source" package of mixed dry beans was purchased, Appellant had never
seen yellow beans in Mexico or the United States (response filed March 25,
2003, page 14, fourth paragraph). Thus, it appears that to make and use the
claimed invention, a skilled artisan would either have to duplicate
Appellant's selective breeding of yellow beans from the package of dried
beans purchased in Mexico in 1994 or rely on ATCC 209549 as a readily
available source of germplasm containing the yellow seed coat
characteristics claimed. In addition, the skilled artisan would have to be able
to tell when "Enola" was achieved, i.e., when seeds and plants having stable
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

22
traits which distinguished Enola from closely related Phaseolus vulgaris
plants or its antecedents was achieved.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are drawn to Enola seed from ATCC
209549. Claims 8-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 recite seeds and common field bean
plants from a field bean variety of Phaseolus vulgaris having yellow colored
seed coats, wherein the yellow color is from or has a color distribution peak
of about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color,
when viewed in natural light. However, Appellant has indicated that Enola
has a "very large number of phenotypic traits" (Tr., 5:12-16); that efforts at
identifying factors that distinguish Enola from other plants have more or less
been limited to the color of the seed and the hilar ring (Tr., 8:13-19); and,
that while a given seed in ATCC 209549 may be Enola, it might not be
Enola (Tr., 11:2-19). Indeed, Ms. Conley testified that Enola is genetically
diverse and contains at least four distinct haplotypes (Conley Declaration, ¶
22; FF 34). Mr. Waibel testified that most of the seed coat color for Enola,
and Yellow River's 2001 and 2002 crop lots showed a seed coat color of
Munsell 5Y 8.5/4 to 7.5Y 8/8 (Waibel Declaration ¶ 42; FF 31).
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Examiner that given the
breadth of the claimed invention; the variable phenotypic identity of the
seeds of ATCC 209549 (which may or may not be Enola); the lack of a
readily available source of germplasm containing the claimed yellow seed
coat color; and, the apparent genetic diversity of Enola (as shown by the
Waibel and Conley Declarations) coupled with the single working example
in the 079 patent specification (directed to Enola ATCC 209549), it would
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

23
have required undue experimentation to make and use the invention of
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 based on the 079 patent disclosure.
B. Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
It is the Examiner's position that claims 1-7 and 59-64 do not
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant
regards as its invention (Ans., 18).
In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996),
the Court stated
As we noted in General Elec. Co. v. Wabash
Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 369 (1938), "[t]he
limits of a patent must be known for the protection
of the patentee, the encouragement of the inventive
genius of others and the assurance that the subject
of the patent will be dedicated ultimately to the
public." Otherwise, a "zone of uncertainty which
enterprise and experimentation may enter only at
the risk of infringement claims would discourage
invention only a little less than unequivocal
foreclosure of the field," United Carbon Co. v.
Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 . . . (1942),
and "[t]he public [would] be deprived of rights
supposed to belong to it, without being clearly told
what it is that limits these rights." Merrill v.
Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 573 . . . (1877).
Thus, claims must "reasonably apprise those skilled in the art" as to their
scope and be "as precise as the subject matter permits." Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1986). "That
determination requires a construction of the claims according to the familiar
canons of claim construction." All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

24
Products, Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "Foremost among the
tools of claim construction is of course the claim language itself, but other
portions of the intrinsic evidence are clearly relevant, including the patent
specification and prosecution history." Id., 309 F.3d at 780. Furthermore,
"[i]t is well established that when the term 'substantially' serves reasonably
to describe the subject matter so that its scope would be understood by
persons in the field of the invention, and to distinguish the claimed subject
matter from the prior art, it is not indefinite. Understanding of this scope
may be derived from extrinsic evidence without rendering the claim
invalid." Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
As to claims 1-7, according to the Examiner, "[b]ased on the patent
disclosure, it is presumed that Enola seed that is deposited as ATCC
Accession Number 209549 is a bean cultivar of uniform genetic and
phenotypic composition" (Ans., 15). However, this presumption is
contradicted by the Polly Proctor II12 and Conley13 Declarations submitted
by Appellant which show the seed deposit to be genetically diverse (Ans.,
18-19). According to the Examiner, "it is unclear what the uniform and
stable selected characteristics in the claimed plants and seeds are, given that
the Patent Owner has stated on the record that the seeds are heterogeneous in
phenotype and there is also evidence of genetic diversity in the seeds that are
deposited as ATCC Accession number 209549" (FR, 14). Therefore, the

12 Declaration of Polly Proctor under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 executed March 25,
2003 ("Polly Proctor II Declaration").
13 Declaration of Laura L. Conley under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 executed March
25, 2003 ("Conley Declaration").
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

25
Examiner concludes that Appellant has not "clearly and distinctly" defined
the claimed invention by depositing a genotypically and phenotypically
divergent population of seed (Ans., 19).
According to Appellant, the seeds deposited with the ATCC are a
heterogenous population, i.e., "the seeds deposited with the ATCC are of a
single cultivar (Enola), which is comprised of a plurality of individuals that
have unique genetic profiles" (App. Br., 13). However, Appellant argues
that "[s]ince the Enola phenotype is stable and uniform in multiple
environments, we must assume that at least part of the genotype (responsible
for the visible properties) is uniform" (App. Br., 14). "The Enola cultivar is
described throughout the patent disclosure as displaying specific uniform
and stable phenotypic traits, e.g., seed coat color and hilar ring color" (Reply
Br., 10). Therefore, Appellant concludes that one skilled in the art would
have been able to determine whether a material infringes the claims or not
by comparing the material to the claim limitation(s), e.g., a specified color in
the Munsell Book of Color (Reply Br., 11).
The language of claims 1-7 appears devoid of any recited limitation
useful as a basis for comparing whether any Phaseolus vulgaris field bean
seed would infringe the claimed seed or its derivative materials. The 079
specification describes the Enola seed as having a unique yellow color (FF
21) which is said to be present through the entire seed coat and to remain
uniform and stable season after season when viewed in natural lighting (FF
22). The 079 specification appears to have again filled-in information
entered in the blanks on the initial 027 PVP application (FF 25); information
that was subsequently amended to include additional descriptive material
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

26
comparing the characteristics of purportedly the closest related field bean
plants, e.g., differences in leaf color vis-à-vis Pimono 78, which is not found
in the original 079 specification (FF 28-30). Furthermore, Appellant has not
denied that the Polly Proctor II and Conley Declarations show the ATCC
deposited seeds to be genetically diverse. Moreover, at oral hearing,
Appellant's counsel indicated that Enola has a "very large number of
phenotypic traits" (Tr., 5:12-16) and that efforts at identifying factors that
distinguish ENOLA from other plants have more or less been limited to the
color of the seed and the hilar ring (Tr., 8:13-19). According to counsel, the
079 patent "on its face does not make any effort to disclose phenotypic
variations. Our position from day one has been that those variations in trait
are inherent" (Tr., 9:4-6). Counsel also indicated that any given seed within
the ATCC deposit may or may not produce a field bean plant that produces a
seed having a seed coat color from about 7/5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in
the Munsell Book of Color and a hilar ring color from about 2.5 Y 9/4 to
about 2.5 Y 9/6 in the Munsell Book of Color, each color being viewed in
natural light (Tr., 11:8-24). In short, either the seeds in ATCC 209549 have
a uniform and stable phenotype (see e.g., App. Br., 14; FF 21) or they do not
(see e.g., Polly Proctor II Declaration; Conley Declaration, ¶ 22; Waibel
Declaration, § 42; Tr. 11:2-19).
Based on the foregoing, since Appellant has not shown that ATCC
2095459 reasonably would have apprised those of skill in the art of the full
scope of the claimed subject matter, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-7 under § 112, ¶ 2.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

27
As to claims 59-64, according to the Examiner, the claim language
reciting seed having a yellow color "wherein the yellow color plotted as a
distribution in the population of the seed of a sufficient number for purposes
of ATCC deposit has a peak occurrence ranging from about to 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to
7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural light"
(claim 59) or "wherein the substantially uniform yellow color plotted as a
distribution in a population of the seed of sufficient number for purposes of
ATCC deposit has a peak occurrence ranging from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to
about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural
light" (claim 62) is indefinite because the range of the yellow color is
unclear (FR, 15-16; Ans., 19-20). Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood the color of the claimed seed because
"[r]ecordation of phenotypic observations as a function of frequency [e.g.,
for 2500 seeds considered sufficient for purposes of ATCC deposit] is a
common tool for plant breeders" (App. Br. 15).
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, claims 59-64 are not
limited to the seed coat color(s) of the ATCC deposited seeds of claim 1 or
its inherent statistical distribution. Indeed, at oral hearing, Appellant's
counsel stated that the scope of the claims should not be understood based
on the deposit (Tr., 8:23-26) and that "[t]he scope of the claims in terms of
the distribution of traits . . . is inherent in disclosure. Certainly not
disclosed." [Tr., 8:26-9:1.]. However, we find that this "inherent disclosure"
creates a "zone of uncertainty" that does not reasonably apprise those of skill
in the art of the scope of claims 59-64. Therefore, we AFFIRM the
Examiner's rejection of claims 59-64 under § 112, ¶ 2.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

28
C. Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 102/§ 103
The Examiner has finally rejected claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over any of
(1) CIAT Accession No. G13 094 (deposited 1979; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(2) CIAT Accession No. G02 400 (deposited 1970; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(3) CIAT Accession No. G22 215 (deposited 1986; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(4) CIAT Accession No. G22 227 (deposited 1986; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(5) CIAT Accession No. 622 230 [sic, G22 230] (deposited 1986;
in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(6) CIAT Accession No. G11 891 (deposited 1980; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(7) Kaplan;14
(8) Hernandez-Xolocotzi;15

14 Kaplan et al. (Kaplan), "Variation in the cultivated beans," in
GUITARRERRO CAVE. EARLY MAN IN THE ANDES, T.F. Lynch
(ed.), Academy Press, New York, p. 146 (1980).
15 Efraim Hernandez Xoloctozi (Hernandez-Xoloctozi), "Plant Introduction
and Germplasm of Phaseolus vulgaris and other Food Legumes," in SERIES
SEMINARS No. 2E: POTENTIALS OF FIELD BEANS AND OTHER
FOOD LEGUMES IN LATIN AMERICA, Centro Internactional de
Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Columbia, February 26 - March 1, 1973, pp. 253-
258.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

29
(9) Voysest;16 and,
(10) Azufrado Peruano 87;17
in "light of the documents filed June 2, 2004, and light of Pallotini18 (Ans.
20-21).19
[35] One thousand one hundred twenty-seven (1127) pages of documents
were filed June 2, 2004.
According to the Examiner, the seeds described in each of the ten
references cited above "comprise a yellow seed coat and yellow/tan hilar
ring" and, each reference is sufficient to shift the burden to Appellant to
establish that the prior art seed coat and hilar ring colors are not the same or
substantially the same as claimed. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977)
(Ans., 21-22). Otherwise, the Examiner considers the claimed seed to be an
obvious morphological variant of the prior art seed "in view of the genetic
heterogeneity of yellow bean varieties as demonstrated by the Conley

16 Oswaldo Voysest (Voysest), "Variedades de frijol en América Latina y su
origen," Centro Internacionale de Agricultura Tropical (1983), pp. 47-49.
This decision cites the two page English translation provided in the section
of Voysest titled "Mexico."
17 Salinas et al. (Azufrado Peruano 87), AZUFRADO PERUANO 87 …
[illegible], Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos et al., SARH
Foileto Técnico No. 5, pp. 2-13. This decision cites the English translation
provided on pp. 2, 6-12.
18 Pallottini et al. (Pallottini), "PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES: The
Genetic Anatomy of a Patented Yellow Bean," Crop Science, Vol. 44, pp.
968-977 (2004).
19 The Examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of claims 1-15, 51, 52, and
56-64 under § 102(b) as anticipated by or, alternatively, under § 103(a) as
obvious over Gepts ("Selection Methods of the Common Bean," in
GENETIC RESOURCES OF PHASEOLUS VULGARIS BEANS, P. Gepts
(ed.), Klever Press, pp. 503-541 (1988)) (Ans., 42).
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

30
Declaration" (Ans. 23). Further, according to the Examiner, since seeds are
propagation material and pollen is part of a plant, both propagation material
and pollen are necessarily taught by the prior art (Ans. 22). Still further
according to the Examiner, the cuboid shape of a seed taken from the middle
of a pod and seed germination in the dark are inherent properties or obvious
variations of the prior art seeds (Ans. 22).
"A claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either
expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference." Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation
omitted). "In general, a limitation or an entire invention is inherent and in
the public domain if it is the 'natural result flowing from' the explicit
disclosure of the prior art." Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339
F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
U.S. 1 (1966). Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1)
the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4)
relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The concept of prima
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

31
facie unpatentability is a procedural mechanism, which requires the
examiner to produce evidence sufficient to support a ruling of
unpatentability in the first instance. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472
(Fed. Cir. 1984). “If examination at the initial stage does not produce a
prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is
entitled to grant of the patent.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
"[W]hen the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products
of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden
of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir.
1990); "[w]here . . . the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical
processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citation
omitted).
1-6. the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog 1992
According to the Examiner, the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog
1992 accession listings for G13 094; G02 400; G22 215; G22 227; 622 230
[sic, G22 230]; and, G11 891 are prior art NPL documents 162-167,
respectively (Ans. 6-7).
[36] None of the citations pointed to by the Examiner contain excerpts
from the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog 1992.
[37] For example, the "document" cited as CIAT Accession No. G13 094
from the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog 1992 comprises
a web link,
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

32
twenty-one pages of what appears to be various search results for
the terms "Mayacoba," "G13 094," and "G13094 Mayocoba,"
a morphological description of a PI 583653 accession number as
having a "seedwgt" value of 37.00, and
a black-and-white copy of two seeds labeled 13094 and
annotated "Reference: Dodds CIAT Re-exam docs".
[38] A cursory review of reexamination file 90/005,892 and reissue file
09/773,303 revealed only one document labeled "Catálogo de
Germoplasma de Frijol cumú Phaseolus vulgaris L." by "Unidad de
Recursos Genéticos CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura
Tropical" "Cali-Columbia Octubre 1992), hereinafter CIAT Oct. 1992
catalog, and containing pages 124 (Spanish), 60-61 (Spanish), and
xxvi-xxix (English).
[39] Page 124 of CIAT Oct. 1992 catalog listed CIAT nos. ranging from
G13038 to G13140.
[40] Thus, only one of the six CIAT accession numbers, i.e., G13094, is
listed in the only CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog 1992 of record.
[41] The entire entry for G13094 in the CIAT Oct. 1992 catalog is
NO CIAT G13094
IDENTIFIER MAYOCOBA
REGLOCAL
ORIG MEX
PROC MEX
CC PS 3.
TMN G
HABT 1
TIPO

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

33
[42] The CIAT Oct. 1992 catalog does not provide any information
regarding seed coat or hilar ring colors of G1309 or mention any
deposit in 1979.
Apparently, the Examiner has relied upon statements made by the
third party requestor in its request for reexamination of the 079 patent filed
on December 20, 2000 ("Request"). For example, according to the third
party requestor,
The collection, characterization and maintenance
of bean genetic resources are the global mandate of
the International Center for tropical [sic]
Agriculture (CIAT). . . . While the CIAT holds
under the International trust agreement some 260
separate accession numbers with yellow seeds, we
would like to draw your attention, in particular, to
the existence of 6 accessions in the CIAT
collection which are substantially identical in
terms of the claims made in U.S. Patent 5,894,079.
. . .
The six accessions all display the claimed yellow
color. Significantly, they also have a yellow hilar
ring . . . and are similar in growth habit to the
"Enola" bean. A description of the six follows,
and photographs are attached as exhibits PHOTOS
A-F.
1. G13 094 called Mayocoba and released as a
commercial variety in the 1970 [sic] in northern
Mexico. THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
TROPICAL AGRICULTURE (CIAT) obtained it
in January 1979 from the Mexican institute INIA-
CIAPAN-Sinoloa.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

34
2. G02 400 called Mantequilla. It was collected by
Howard Scott Gentry (USDA plant collector)
(HSG-21953) in Alamos, Sonora, Mexico, in 1965.
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
TROPICAL AGRICULTURE (CIAT) obtained it
from USDA Beltsville (Mr. Harold Winters) in
September 1970. It has a US plant introduction
number: PI 312 090. [Request, pp. 4-5.]
[43] The record before us contains black-and-white copies of PHOTOS A-
F attached to the Request.
However, the rejection of claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 54-58 set forth by
the Examiner relies on the disclosure of the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris
Catalog 1992, not on allegations of a third party. The disclosure of the only
CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog 1992 which appears to be of record is
very limited and only lists one of the six accession nos. the Examiner asserts
as anticipatory prior art, i.e., CIAT accession no. G13094 (FF 38-42). The
Examiner has not provided a sufficient factual basis to support a prima facie
case of unpatentability. For example, the Examiner might have included the
relevant pages of the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog 1992 or other
evidence supporting the asserted disclosure being relied upon or have
introduced color photographs of the claimed and prior art seeds for visual
comparison of the yellow seed coat color into the record before us.20 Since
the Examiner has not provided sufficient factual evidence to support a prima
facie case of unpatentability, we REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-15,
51, 52, and 54-58 under § 102(b) or, alternatively, under § 103(a) over

20 The only "color" reference of record before us is a color copy of page 7.5Y
of the Munsell Book of Color.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

35
(1) CIAT Accession No. G13 094 (deposited 1979; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(2) CIAT Accession No. G02 400 (deposited 1970; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(3) CIAT Accession No. G22 215 (deposited 1986; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(4) CIAT Accession No. G22 227 (deposited 1986; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992);
(5) CIAT Accession No. 622 230 [sic, G22 230] (deposited 1986;
in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992); and,
(6) CIAT Accession No. G11 891 (deposited 1980; in CIAT
Phaseolus vulgaris Catalog, 1992.
The Board does not search through the thousand plus pages of text,
charts and other materials submitted on June 2, 2004, to find the particular
disclosure(s) which support the Examiner's assertions of inherent
anticipation or obviousness over any of the ten references relied on. See
United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991). It is not the
factfinder's burden to search through a lengthy document disclosure for
possible evidence which may support the position of the party with the
burden of proof, here the Examiner.
7. Kaplan
[44] In Table 7.1, Kaplan discloses a Guitarrero Phaseolus vulgaris seed
variety, Pv 6, as having median seed dimension of 1.1 cm length, 0.79
cm width, 0.69 cm thickness, an average of 4 seeds/pod, and a yellow
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

36
and spherical morphology, and a "new to archaeology" distribution
(Kaplan, 146).
The Examiner has failed to provide a sufficient factual basis to
support a prima facie case of unpatentability. For example, Kaplan discloses
a "spherical" seed shape (FF 44), whereas the 079 patent describes the Enola
seed shape as "cuboid" (FF 26). Kaplan discloses an average of 4 seeds/pod
(FF 44) versus the 079 patent's disclosure of an average of 3.1 seeds/pod (FF
26). Finally, the Examiner has failed to point to specific evidence indicating
that the yellow color of the seed described by Kaplan has a Munsell color
from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7/5 Y 8.5/6 or a Munsell color of between
about 5 Y 8.5/4 to 7.5Y 8/8 as suggested by the Waibel Declaration (FF 31).
Nor has the Examiner established that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered the above Munsell color to be an obvious variant of the
unspecified yellow color described by Kaplan, e.g., due to differences in
environment.
The 079 patent explicitly describes ATCC 209549 as having specific
characteristics and the Examiner has not explained why Kaplan discloses
seeds which reasonably appear to have or suggest these specific
characteristics. The Examiner has not explained why the yellow color
disclosed by Kaplan is the same or substantially the same as the yellow color
recited in the claims or explained why the noted differences in seed shape
and average number of seeds/pod are immaterial. The Examiner has not
established that the claimed hilar ring color or cuboid seed shape is inherent
or suggested by Kaplan. The Examiner has not indicated where in the
massive document disclosure of June 2, 2004, or Pallottini, there is a
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

37
discussion of the seeds described by Kaplan. A prima facie case of
unpatentability, whether based on anticipation under § 102 or obviousness
under § 103(a), cannot stand without a sufficient factual basis.
Since the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to support a
prima facie case of unpatentability, we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-
15, 51, 52, and 54-58 under § 102(b), or alternatively under § 103(a), over
Kaplan.
8. Hernandez-Xolocotzi
[45] In Table 2, Hernandez-Xolocotzi discloses the composition of a
mixture of bean seeds planted in the northeast region of the state of
Puchla, Mexico, under uncertain climate conditions, low soil fertility
and in association with maize (Hernandez-Xolocotzi, 257).
[46] Out of the 678 seeds from two species of Phaseolus in the mixture,
225 seeds ranging in diameter from 0.5 to 1.2 mm were yellow and 3
seeds were variegated yellow (Hernandez-Xoloctozi, 257).
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 54-58 under §
102(b), or alternatively under § 103(a), over Hernandez-Xolocotzi for
similar reasons given above for our reversal of the rejection based on
Kaplan. Specifically, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to
support a prima facie case of unpatentability, e.g., the Examiner has not
explained why the yellow color disclosed by Hernandez-Xolocotzi is the
same or substantially the same yellow color recited in the claims.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not indicated where in the massive document
disclosure of June 2, 2004, or Pallottini, there is a discussion of the seeds
described by Hernandez-Xolocotzi.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

38
9. Voysest
[47] Voysest discloses that "Canarios" and "Azufrados" are among the
bean varieties grown commercially in Mexico (Voysest, 1).
[48] "In 1955 seed of the variety 'Canario 101' were distributed, resulting
from individual selections in a collection found in Tacámbaro,
Michoaćan" (Voysest, 1).
[49] "Few varieties such as 'Azufrado 33' were obtained through individual
selections, while other [varieties] such as 'Canario 78' (Ahome),
'Azufrado 100' (Cahita 100), 'Culiaćan 200," "Azufrado Pimono 78'
(Mayocoba), 'Canario 72' (CIAS 72), and 'Toche 400' [were obtained]
through hybridization" (Voysest, 2, bracketed text in original
translation.).
[50] According to Voysest, it is difficult to credit bean breeders for certain
varieties given the large number of varieties produced in Mexico and
the way the bean program is organized (Voysest, 2).
"The Examiner maintains that the beans taught by Voysest are
Azufrado Peruano 87" (FR, 20; Ans., 42). While the English translation of
Voysest mentions "Azufrado" and "Azufrado peruano" as two known types
of Azufrado bean varieties, it does not mention "Azufrado peruano 87." The
Examiner has failed to point to any evidence of record establishing that
"Azufrado peruano," e.g., is an art-recognized synonym for "Azufrado
peruano 87."
Once again the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to
support a prima facie case of unpatentability. Voysest does not provide any
morphological description of its seed, e.g., shape or weight, the plants
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

39
produced therefrom, estimated time to maturity, leaf morphology, disease
resistance, or yield. Voysest does not discuss the Munsell color of its
disclosed seed or the hilar ring. In short, the Examiner has not factually
established that the seeds disclosed by Voysest are the same or substantially
the same as those claimed. Nor has the Examiner established that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the Voysest seeds to
be obvious variants of the claimed subject matter.
The Examiner has not indicated where in the massive document
disclosure of June 2, 2004, there is a discussion of the seeds described by
Voysest. As for Pallottini, according to the Examiner,
Pallotini et al [sic] provide evidence that seeds of
the deposited Enola bean have an identical genetic
fingerprint to seeds of Azufrado Peruano 87 (see
the abstract; page 972 at the first full paragraph of
the second column; Figure 2, and the last
paragraph of page 976, for example). Azufrado
Peruano 87 is a yellow-seeded bean from Mexico.
Based on the molecular fingerprint, the deposited
seed cannot be distinguished from the prior art
seed, and Appellant has provided no evidence to
the contrary. [Ans., 23.]
However, as stated above, the Examiner has not established that
Voysest discloses Azufrado Peruano 87. Pallottini does not provide a
factual basis for the Examiner's finding that Voysest describes the seeds
Appellant claims.
Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-15,
51, 52, and 54-58 under § 102(b), or alternatively under § 103(a), over
Voysest.
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

40
10. Azufrado Peruano 87
[51] Azufrado Peruano 87 is disclosed as having the following primary
traits:
color of flower white
days to 50% flower 49
physio. maturity 100
growth habit semi-det.
internodes 7-9
plant height 43 cm
pods/plant 23
seeds/pod 4.3
weight/100 seeds 42 gr
reaction to rust resistant
reaction to virosis tolerant
reaction to white mold susceptible but escapes
due to growth habit
(Azufrado Peruano 87, p. 9).
[52] Azufrado Peruzno 87 is said to have an average yield of 2.6
tons/hectare, an approximately 100% increase over Azufrado
Regional's average yield of 1.2 tons/hectare (Azufrado Peruano 87, p.
11).

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

41
11. Pallottini
[53] According to Pallottini, based on amplified fragment length
polymorphism ("AFLP") studies, "[o]ur results show that the DNA
fingerprint of ENOLA is identical to a fingerprint found in Mexican
yellow-seeded beans of the Peruano group" (Pallottini, 969).
[54] Among the common field bean materials analyzed by Pallottini are
Azufrado Regional 78, entry nos. 47 and 48; Azufrado Peruano 87,
entry no. 49; and, Azufrado Pimono 78, entry no. 50 (Pallottini, 969).
[55] Azufrado Peruano 87, Enola 2001, Enola 2000-2 and Enola 2002 are
all described as yellow-seed cultivars by Pallottini (Pallottini, 969).
[56] Based on probability calculations, Pallottini concluded that Enola
most likely originated from direct selection within pre-existing
yellow-bean cultivars from Mexico, most probably "Azufrado
Peruano 87" (Pallottini, 976).
The Examiner argues that Pallottini reasonably establishes that the
Azufrado Peruano 87 plant and seed, as disclosed by Azufrado Peruano 87,
has an identical genetic fingerprint as the claimed Enola seed and plant (FR
19; Ans., 23). We find from the evidence that the Azufrado Peruano 87
plant and seed disclosed in Azufrado Peruano 87 reasonably appears to be
substantially the same as the claimed Enola plant and seed. Both (i) produce
white flowers, (ii) have approximately the same physiological maturity time
of 100 vs. 101 days, (iii) show substantially the same growth habit of
semideterminate vs. determinate, (iv) show substantially the same
weight/100 seeds of 42 gr. vs. 43 gr., and (v) are yellow-seeded cultivars
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

42
(FFs 26, 51 and 55). The DNA studies performed by Pallottini were said to
give the same DNA fingerprint for Enola and Azufrado Peruano 87 (FF 53).
Pallottini concludes that the most likely origin of Enola was by direct
selection within pre-existing yellow-bean cultivars from Mexico, most
probably "Azufrado Peruano 87" (FF 56). Here, we find that the Examiner
reasonably has established a prima facie case of anticipation sufficient to
shift the burden to Appellant to show that the Enola cultivar, its propagating
material, and seeds are not the Azufrado Peruano 87 cultivar, its propagating
material, and seeds.
The Examiner also argues that ". . . due to the effects of different
soils, environmental conditions, cultivation conditions and geographic
conditions on the phenotypic characteristics of all plants, including beans,
the claimed beans . . . are . . . morphological variants of the prior art lines. .
." (Ans., 48). The Examiner relies on the Waibel Declaration in support of
her position.
[57] Mr. Waibel testified that "[p]lants show slight differences in how they
develop each year depending on the environment they grow in"
(Waibel Declaration, sentence bridging pp. 1-2).
Appellant argues that Pallottini merely shows "that it is more unlikely
than likely that Enola resulted from Azufrado Peruano 87 without crossing"
(App. Br., 21). Relying on the testimony of Ms. Conley, Appellant contends
that Pallottini merely establishes that some similarities exist within a certain
portion of their genomes (Reply Br., 14).
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

43
[58] Ms. Conley testified that "[t]he identification of a set of AFLP
fragments that is identical for two individuals, does not 'prove'
homogeneity of those individuals" (Conley Declaration, ¶ 23).
Appellant concludes that Pallottini does not prove that Azufrado Peruano 87
anticipates the claims (Reply Br., 14).
Alternatively, Appellant argues that the Waibel Declaration is
insufficient to establish that the claimed invention is a morphological variant
of Azufrado Peruano 87 because "slight differences" fall within the scope of
phenotypic variances (Reply Br., 14). In our judgment, Appellant has failed
to provide evidence sufficient to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of
unpatentability under § 102(b), or alternatively under § 103(a), based on the
disclosure of Azufrado Peruano 87 in light of Pallottini and/or the Waibel
Declaration. Appellant agrees that Pallottini shows similarities exist within
certain portions of the genomes of Azufrado Peruano 87 and Enola.
However, Appellant has failed to prove that the prior art Azufrado Peruano
87 and its propagating material, e.g., seed, are not the claimed Enola and
propagating material. In re Spada, 911 F.2d at 708; In re Best, 562 F.2d at
1255.
Appellant might have provided expert testimony based on evidence of
a comparison of Azufrado Peruano 87 and ATCC 209549 seeds under the
same natural lighting conditions to show that the ATCC 209549 seeds have
a substantially uniform seed coat color of about Munsell 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about
Munsell 7.5 Y 8.5/6 whereas Azufrado Peruano 87 does not, or similar
comparisons, e.g., of hilar ring color, leaf color, or yield, etc. On balance, it
is our view that the evidence of anticipation, or alternatively obviousness,
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

44
presented by the Examiner outweighs the evidence to the contrary proffered
by Appellant. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the
rejection of claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under § 102(b) as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative under § 103(a), as obvious over
Azufrado Peruano 87.
IV. Order
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 59-64
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description), is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner further
rejecting claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (written description), is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(enablement), is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-7 and 59-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over CIAT
Accession No. G13 094 (deposited 1979; in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris
Catalog, 1992) is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

45
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over CIAT
Accession No. G02 400 (deposited 1970; in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris
Catalog, 1992) is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over CIAT
Accession No. G22 215 (deposited 1986; in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris
Catalog, 1992) is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over CIAT
Accession No. G22 227 (deposited 1986; in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris
Catalog, 1992) is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over CIAT
Accession No. 622 230 [sic, G22 230] (deposited 1986; in CIAT Phaseolus
vulgaris Catalog, 1992) is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over CIAT
Accession No. G11 891 (deposited 1980; in CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris
Catalog, 1992) is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

46
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Kaplan is
REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Hernandez-
Xolocotzi is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Voysest is
REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims 1-15, 51, 52, and 56-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Azufrado
Peruano 87 is AFFIRMED; and,
FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any subsequent
action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 35 U.S.C.
§ 1.136(a) (2006).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2007-3938
Reexamination Control 90/005,892
Reissue Application 09/773,303
Patent 5,894,079

47
LATHROP & GAGE LC
4845 Pearl East Circle
Suite 300
Boulder, CO 80301

cc (3rd Party Requestor):
John Dodds
Dodds & Associates
1742 N. St. NW
Washington, DC 20036