Interference No. 105,041 Paper 26
Syngenta Participations AG v. Bayer CropScience GmbH Page 3
in a monocotyledonous plant operably linked to a coding sequence which encodes
an enzyme which catalyzes the conversion of N-acetyl-phosphinothricin to
phosphinothricin, wherein said coding sequence is obtained from an argE gene;
(b) interplanting the conditional female sterile plant with a male
sterile plant;
(c) inducing female sterility by applying N-acetyl-phosphinothricin to the
conditional female sterile plant; and
(d) producing monocotyledonous hybrid seed.
[8] Syngenta claim 94 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
in a monocotyledonous plant operably linked to a coding sequence which encodes
an argE enzyme which catalyzes the conversion of N-acetyl-phosphinothricin to
phosphinothricin;
(b) interplanting the conditional female sterile plant with a male
sterile plant;
(c) inducing female sterility by applying N-acetyl-phosphinothricin to the
conditional female sterile plant; and
(d) producing monocotyledonous hybrid seed.
[9] Bayer has not presented comparable interplanting claims.
[10] The first named inventor of Syngenta's application is "Harper".
[11] Syngenta defines "interplanting" in the specification (p. 4, ¶3) as follows:
Rather than being in separate blocks of rows so that seed from only the female
parent plants can be harvested, the male and female parent plants need to be
interplanted in the same rows meaning that the plants are centimeters, rather than
meters[,] apart.
[12] The specification (p.4, ¶2) lists disadvantages that attend not being able to interplant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007