Appeal No. 96-1027 Application 08/162,288 constructs whereas van der Krol and Hiatt, in contradistinction to the claims, use full length constructs. Finally, only Hiatt uses DNA constructs to modulate fruit-ripening enzyme expression in plant cells. The parties have disagreed as to whether Jorgensen teaches DNA constructs encoding proteins to inhibit ripening-enzymes. However, considering that Jorgensen makes only a single mention of "ripening traits" as a trait, among many others, that potentially could be subject to the Jorgensen expression-reducing method (column 3, lines 53-57) and that the remaining disclosure is directed solely to affecting color changes in the plant, we agree with appellants that Jorgensen would not suggest to one of ordinary skill a more particular process by which a plant cell is transformed with a DNA construct coding for only a part of a fruit riping enzyme. There is no dispute that van der Krol does not teach or suggest modifying gene expression of fruit-ripening enzymes. Like Jorgensen, the van der Krol method is directed to flavonoid genes. Accordingly, each reference teaches a part of the claimed invention. The claimed invention involves partial constructs and the modification of the expression of fruit-ripening enzymes. These two limitations are taught by Jorgensen and Hiatt, respectively. However, we fail to find any reason in the the references to modify Jorgensen's partial constructs to modify expression of fruit ripening enzymes as taught by Hiatt. In fact, given that Jorgensen employs sense constructs while Hiatt employs anti-sense constructs in practicing their respective methods, and that there is no disclosure equating the use of antisense 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007