Interference 103,579
No. 141). We conclude that no interference-in-fact exists
between subject matter claimed in Visser’s involved application
fragment essentially has a nucleotide sequence which is
selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID No. 1, SEQ ID
No. 2 and SEQ ID No. 3;
growing the transformed potato tissue to produce a
potato plant containing potato tubers;
producing at least one potato from said potato tubers;
and
separating starch from said potato, wherein said
starch is an amylopectin-type starch which is essentially
free of amylose.
2. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 1, wherein said fragment has a
nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No. 1.
3. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 1, wherein said fragment has a
nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No. 2.
4. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 1, wherein said fragment has a
nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No. 3.
5. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 1, wherein said promoter
comprises a CAMV 35S promoter.
6. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 1, wherein said promoter
comprises a patatin I promoter.
7. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 1, wherein said promoter
comprises a GBSS promoter.
8. The process for producing an amylopectin-type
starch according to claim 7, wherein said GBSS promoter
has the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID No. 4.
-125-
Page: Previous 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007