Appeal No. 96-1027
Application 08/162,288
We consider the issues in this appeal as they apply to claim 17, which is the only
independent claim and therefore representative of the claims on appeal:
17. A process for modifying the production of a target gene product in a plant cell
which comprises transforming the plant cell with a construct comprising a recombinant DNA
sequence coding for only part of the target gene product wherein said target gene product is a
fruit ripening enzyme.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Jorgensen 5,034,323 July 23, 1989
(effective date 03/30/89)
Hiatt 4,801,540 Jan. 31, 1989
(effective date 01/2/87)
Napoli et al., The Plant Cell, Vol. 2, pp. 279-89 (Apr. 1990)
van der Krol et al., The Plant Cell, Vol. 2, pp. 291-99 (Apr. 1990)
van der Krol et al., Plant Molecular Biology, Vol. 14, pp. 457-66 (1990)
van der Kroll, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 14, September 1989
There are four rejections1 (Examiner's Answer, pp. 3-7):
Claims 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, "as the
disclosure is enabling only for claims limited to polygalacturonase and pectinesterase
sequences derived from tomato."
Claims 4, 17-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, "as
the disclosure is enabling only for claims limited to where the plant cell is tomato."
1 There are currently three separate rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and one rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Final Rejection (Paper No. 9) included a fourth rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. But this was subsequently withdrawn (Examiner's Answer, top p. 9). Accordingly,
appellants' arguments (Brief, pp. 7-10) regarding that rejection are moot.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007