VISSER et al v. HOFVANDER et al - Page 26




          Interference 103,579                                                        

               We conclude that the processes for producing an amylopectin-           
          type starch from potato plants grown from potato tissue having              
          a genome transformed by a PGBSS gene fragment essentially having            
          a nucleotide sequence selected from SEQ ID No. 1, SEQ ID No. 2,             
          and SEQ ID NO. 3 inserted in the antisense direction which are              
          claimed in Hofvander’s patent, irrespective of their having been            
          characterized in one or more of Hofvander’s applications as                 
          directed to inventions independent and distinct from the PGBSS              
          gene fragments, antisense constructs including the PGBSS                    
          fragments, potato plant cells or tissue transformed by said                 
          antisense constructs, and potato plants grown from the                      
          transformed plant cells or tissue which are utilized in the                 
          later patented process claims for purposes of restriction under             
          37 CFR § 1.142, prima facie are directed to separate patentable             
          inventions from the subject matter claimed in Visser’s involved             
          application if we conclude that the PGBSS gene fragments,                   
          antisense constructs including said PGBSS fragments, potato plant           
          cells or tissue transformed by the antisense constructs, and                
          potato plants grown from the transformed plant cells or tissue              
          required to carry out the processes claimed in Hofvander’s                  
          patent are directed to separate patentable inventions from                  
          the subject matter claimed in Visser’s involved application.                
          Hofvander’s reliance on an examiner’s preliminary administrative            

                                        -26-                                          





Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007