|
|
'WEKmeymo' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
A United States patent application for Wekmeymo, #11/820,136, in the name of Lawrence E. Meyer and assigned to Weeks, was filed 6/18/2007. It was published 12/18/2008, as US Patent Publication 2008/0313779-P1. The application was initially rejected based on some easily correctable formalities. However, Weeks chose not to pursue the application and abandoned it.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
yesterday by
 jedmar
|
Patent application and further info added, thank you!
|
REPLY
|
|
There is no indication that Weeks abandoned the application due to registration of a similar rose. I originally thought this might be the case, but Yoyo was not cited in the prosecution history by either the applicant or the patent examiner. When they apply for a patent, applicants are required to cite the closest prior art of which they are aware, so they probably were not even aware of its existence. A more likely reason is that there was limited commercial potential for a miniature rose similar to Gizmo.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
16 JUN 07 by
Unregistered Guest
|
This appears to be the same rose as Yoyo, registered in 2003. In what ways does it differ enough to warrant its own registration under a different name?
|
REPLY
|
|
Although the roses may look the same to you, one rose is a sport of 'Gizmo', while the other was bred by crossing two different roses. They are two different roses.
Smiles,
Lyn
|
REPLY
|
|
Actually, please look at "parentage" on the description page of both Spring Fling and Yoyo. Both are listed as sports of Gizmo. : )
|
REPLY
|
|
OOOOPS ! Sorry, Susan. I must have been thinking of a different rose. You are right, they are both listed as "sports of 'Gizmo' ". However, there could be more than one sport for a rose and since two different people have registered the rose, this may be the case.
Smiles,
Lyn
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you. I am very much aware that one rose may have many sports. Yoyo was registered in November of 2003, and Spring Fling was registered three years later, in November of 2006. My original question remains, and it is a question that probably should be addressed by the person who registered it: in what ways does it differ enough to warrant its own registration? It is a simple question for which there may be a simple answer. ; )
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
18 JUN 07 by
Cass
|
I suggest you email Susan Brandt Graham and ask her the question. You can send an email from the Breeder page. Search for Graham using the BREEDER side bar.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you, Cass. I AM Susan Brandt Graham.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
18 JUN 07 by
Cass
|
LOL. Now that I've confirmed that I am a complete fool...Seems to me the IRAR really ought to answer your legitimate initial question. If it were me and my rose, I do believe I'd make the inquiry. Of course you have every reason to ignore anything I say. I see you can email Marily from the IRAR website. That would be a good place to start, to familiarize her with the issue and to find out from her how she thinks you ought to approach the question. It's a start.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you very much, Cass. I will take your advice - it is very good advice, and I appreciate your sending me in the right direction. Thanks again - Susan
|
REPLY
|
|
