Appeal No. 2002-2030 Page 3
Application No. 09/294,663
The specification also discloses that the T. ni IIM was used to raise
anti-IIM antibodies, see pages 14-16, and that the antibodies were used to
identify cross-reacting proteins in other insect species. Sixteen of the twenty-one
species of insects assayed (including T. ni) contained cross-reacting proteins.
See pages 31-32. Of the sixteen cross-reacting species, eight “had high
molecular weight bands similar in size to T. ni IIM.” Page 33.
Discussion
Claims 1, 6, and 9 stand or fall together. See the Appeal Brief, page 4.
We will consider claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 is directed to a transformed
plant comprising an expression vector “encoding an invertebrate intestinal mucin
(IIM) protein,” such that the transformed plant can express the IIM protein. The
examiner rejected the claims as inadequately described and nonenabled.
1. Written description
The examiner rejected the claims as inadequately described. The
examiner noted that the claims read on a transformed plant comprising a vector
encoding any invertebrate intestinal mucin protein, while the specification
discloses only two IIM isoforms from a single insect species. See the Examiner’s
Answer, pages 7-8. According to the examiner, “[n]o other IIM genes have been
isolated, characterized or described. No specific chemical or physical
characteristics have been disclosed for these genes or their encoded proteins,
other than those from Trichoplusia ni, and a review of literature does not indicate
that such characteristics would be well known by a skilled artisan.” Id., page 8.
The examiner concluded that “[t]he description of two species [is] not a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007