Interference 103,781
However, we find that Adang’s uncertainty as to the cause of
premature termination of transcription and inefficient expression
of Bt genes encoding insecticidal protein in plants, as evidenced
by Adang’s continued lack of success and accompanying
accumulation of more complete information between December 12,
1986, and September 9, 1988, suggests that none of Adang’s
pre-December 12, 1986, possible solutions to the problems they
had encountered expressing Bt genes encoding insecticidal
proteins in plants represented a definite and permanent idea of a
complete invention of Claim 1 or 11 of Adang’s involved patent or
Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s involved application.
More importantly, Adang’s evidence as a whole does not
establish that it had recognized removal of ATTTA sequences
specifically and polyadenylation sites generally from the native
Bt gene encoding Bt toxin as a definite and permanent solution to
the problems they found expressing the native Bt gene in plants.
Adang attempts to remedy the shortcomings of its case for
priority of the invention defined by Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s
involved application by reference to published prior art and
knowledge of the publications in the art prior to December 12,
1986. This remedy is hard to swallow.
First Adang cites an article by Dean et al., Nucleic Acids
Res., citation illegible (AX 102F), which is said to have been
-145-
Page: Previous 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007