Interference 103,579
inserted into the genome of potato plants in the antisense
direction. We take particular note that Hofvander’s constructs
include three fragments of the potato gene (1) at least one of
which has no common DNA sequences with Visser’s full length PGBSS
genomic DNA, and (2) no two of which themselves have a common DNA
sequence.
C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
We assume that each party’s claims are prior art with
respect to the other party’s claims. 37 CFR §§ 1.601(j) and
1.601(n). Assuming first that Hofvander’s claims designated as
corresponding to the count are prior art with respect to Visser’s
claims designated as corresponding to the count, the consistent
criterion for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
whether the prior art would have led persons having ordinary
skill in the art to make and use subject matter Visser claims
with reasonable expectation of success. In re Dow Chem. Co.,
837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is reasonable
expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904,
7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A case for obviousness is
not established where the prior art would have led persons having
ordinary skill in the art to explore a new technology or general
approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation
but provided no more than general guidance as to the particular
-85-
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007