Appeal No. 1996-1042
Application No. 07/810,138
DISCUSSION
Initially, we note that the recitation "spoII:D" in
claims 9 and 14 appears to be incorrect. We believe that
appellants intend "spoII:D ," consistent with the description-
in the specification, page 5, line 9 and with the recitation
of an asporogenous strain of Bacillus subtilis. On return of
this application to the Examining Group, we recommend that
both appellants and the examiner clarify this matter.
Claims 9 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure.
According to the examiner, the specification does not teach
how to make the claimed biologically pure culture of
asporogenous strain Bacillus subtilis SMS275, suitable for use
as a host component in a host-vector system. We disagree.
As set forth in the specification, page 4, fourth
paragraph:
An asporogenous mutant of B.subtilis which overcomes
the problems described above has now been isolated.
This mutant, known as SMS275, has been deposited on
October 5, 1990 at the Centraalbureau Voor
Schimmelcultures where it received the number CBS
432.90.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007