Appeal No. 93-2460
Application No. 07/590,647
Potrykus, p. 538, col. 2, para. 3; p. 540, col. 1, para. 3.
Potrykus prefaces his remarks with the statement that his
assessment will be subjective. It will be based on a rigid
definition of what constitutes proof of successful
integrative transformation. Those who disagree with the
view that indicative evidence is misleading may not agree
with this assessment. The review will also be based on an
interpretation of the biological factors affecting gene
transfer, and several statements will be made for which no
solid experimental data are available. (Emphasis in
original.)
Potrykus, p. 535, col. 2, lines 9-21.
Rejection I
The examiner initially urges that the claims are unclear as
to what the appellants intend by positions 80 and 120 and
positions 170 and 210. The examiner states that “[i]t is
confusing as to whether the numbering refers to amino acid or
nucleic acid residues.” Answer, p. 5, para. 3. We agree. We
note the appellants attempt to rectify the problem in an
amendment filed after the final office action, however, said
amendment was not entered by the examiner. Paper No. 10, mailed 5
4(...continued)
procedures have been used to produce transgenic rice and maize
plants. Potrykus, p. 540, col. 1, para. 3.
5The examiner refused entry of the amendment stating that
“[a]lthough, substitution of ‘enzyme’ for ‘gene’ would have
(continued...)
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007