Appeal No. 2003-1993
Application No. 09/470,526
(c) a polynucleotide comprising the coding sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1; and
(d) a polynucleotide complementary to a polynucleotide of (a) through (c).
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Aligue et al. (Aligue), “Regulation of Schizosaccharomyces pombe Wee1 Tyrosine
Kinase,” J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 272, pp. 13320-13325 (1997)
Hemerly et al. (Hemerly), “Dominant negative mutants of the Cdc2 kinase uncouple cell
division from iterative plant development,” The EMBO Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 3925-3936
(1995)
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 2-11, 31, 33 and 35-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as containing subject matter that was not described in the specification in
such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art at the time the application
was filed that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11, 31, 33 and 35-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for lack of enablement.
These rejections are reversed.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007