Appeal No. 96-0051 Page 5
Application No. 07/987,256
should be no question of what segments to invert: the entire
sequence must be inverted. On this record, there is ample guidance
for how to prepare a synthase antisense cassette. Although more
detail in the specification might have been better, it is not
required. See Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d
931, 941, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (A production
specification is not required for enablement).
As far as the relationship of the proteins described in
claims 21 and 25 to synthases I and II is concerned, neither claim
requires any specific relationship. Each only claims a protein with
an approximate molecular weight that is a Ricinus communis $-
ketoacyl-ACP synthase protein, but does not specify type I or type
II. Claim 37 requires no more. Thus, any questions about the
relationship of the proteins in the claims to the synthases of the
specification is moot.
Similarly, the examiner's concern about whether the antisense
would work, i.e., would decrease the effects of the synthase, is
misdirected. Claim 37 is directed to a DNA construct, not a method
of reducing synthase activity. Moreover, the construct need only
permit the expression of the encoding sequence in an antisense
orientation. Whether or not the expression product reduces synthase
activity is not relevant to understanding the claimed subject matter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007