Interference No. 105,041 Paper 26
Syngenta Participations AG v. Bayer CropScience GmbH Page 2
[2] Count 1, the sole count, is:
The method of Syngenta claim 93 OR the process of Hoechst claim 7.
[3] Syngenta claim 93 is:
A method for producing a conditional female sterile monocotyledonous
plant comprising:
(a) introducing into a monocotyledonous plant cell an expression cassette
according to claim 57; [and]
(b) obtaining a conditional female sterile monocotyledonous plant from
said monocotyledonous plant cell of step (a).
[4] Syngenta claim 57 is:
An expression cassette comprising a female-preferential promoter capable
of female-preferential activity in a monocotyledonous plant operably linked to a
coding sequence of interest, wherein said coding sequence of interest encodes an
enzyme which catalyzes the conversion of N-acetyl-phosphinothricin to
phosphinothricin and wherein said coding sequence is obtained from an argE
gene.
[5] Bayer claim 7 is:
[A p]rocess for producing transgenic plants containing selectively
destructible plant parts, wherein an N-Ac-PTC or N-Ac-PTT deacetylase gene is
placed under the control of a pistil- or stigma[-]specific promoter, and the pistil[]
or stigma are caused to die by means of suitable, timely treatment with
N-acetyl-PTC or N-acetyl-PTT.
[6] The claims to be redesignated all depend from either Syngenta claim 43 or Syngenta claim 94,
both of which require "interplanting".
[7] Syngenta claim 43 is (emphasis added):
A method for hybrid seed production comprising:
(a) obtaining a conditional female sterile monocotyledonous plant
comprising a female-preferential promoter capable of female-preferential activity
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007