Interference 103,579
Helena Lab. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472
(Fed. Cir. 1988). . . .
When the meaning of a claim term is in doubt, we
look to the specification for guidance. See Hormone
Research Foundation, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d
1558, 1562, 15 USPQ2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . .
Based on Claims 1 and 15 of Visser’s involved application,
we conclude that full length PGBSS cDNA or genomic DNA of
Visser’s Claims 1 and 15 must code for PGBSS in its functional
[sense] orientation. Visser’s method Claims 1 and 15 both
utilize “at least one gene construct containing a full length
potato granule-bound starch synthase (PGBSS) cDNA or genomic DNA
sequence coding for PGBSS in reverse orientation in an expression
cassette which is functional in potato plants . . .” (emphasis
added). These “gene construct[s] giv[e] . . . rise to tubers
containing amylose free starch” (Visser’s Claim 1). The “full
length potato . . . GBSS . . . cDNA or genomic DNA sequence
coding for PGBSS in reverse orientation” does not itself include
either the “upstream promoter base sequence” (Visser’s Claims 1
and 15) or “downstream transcription terminator base sequence”
(Visser’s Claims 1 and 15) which is necessary for the gene
construct to give rise to tubers containing amylose free starch.
The “full length potato . . . GBSS . . . cDNA or genomic DNA
sequence coding for PGBSS in reverse orientation” is part of a
-39-
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007