Appeal No. 94-3255
Application 07/673,264
difference between Bacillus MGA3 and other methylotrophic
Bacillus described in the prior art; e.g., the methylotrophic
Bacillus described by Dijkhuizen?
As to the entire phrase “a corresponding environmental
isolate having all the identifying characteristics of Bacillus
MGA3,” in Category 2, above, again, we turn to the
specification to determine whether claim 55 “set[s] out and
circumscribe[s] a particular area with a reasonable degree of
particularity.”
In re Moore, 439 F.2d at 1235, 169 USPQ at 238. To that end,
we find that the specification describes the isolation of
Bacillus MGA3 from the freshwater marsh soil. Specification,
pp. 16-17. The specification further states that NOA2 was
isolated from a separate source and exhibits identical
characteristics as MGA3. Specification, p. 27.
The examiner has stated, and the appellants do not
disagree, that by “corresponding environmental isolate,” they
do not intend Bacillus MGA3; otherwise, they would not have
employed the term “corresponding” in the claim. The
specification does not state that NOA2 is a “corresponding
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007