Appeal No. 94-2232
Application 07/888,367
encodes a protein corresponding to the 204 amino acid sequence
in Figure 2, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of Walujono, Broekaert, and Weissman and 35 U.S.C. §
102(f)/103 in light of Lee I and Lee II.
The examiner appears to have rejected the claims in this
case based on a presumption that the presently claimed3
methods of detecting the presence of a hevein peptide and
hevein peptide sequences in plant material are peptide
detection methods which are distinct from the methods
described by White only in the utilization of the cDNA, HEV1,
claimed in copending Application 07/888,366, Appeal No. 94-
2156. However, as we read the claims on appeal, the herein
claimed methods of detecting hevein peptide and hevein peptide
sequences in plant material utilize (1) cDNA which “is derived
from E. coli ATCC 68363, and has a open reading frame of 204
amino acids which detects the presence of the hevein peptide
sequence encoded by the RNA” (Claim 7) or (2) cDNA which “is
derived from the cDNA shown in Figure 2 which detects the
3 The examiner’s Response to argument on pages 8-13 of the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) entered in this appeal is essentially the
same as the Response to argument on pages 8-13 of the Examiner’s
Answer entered in Application 07/888,366, Appeal No. 94-2156.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007