Appeal No. 2004-1968 Page 18
Application No. 10/000,311
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 6, 12-19, 21,
24, 26-28, 30 and 31 under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
Enablement:
Claims 6, 12-19, 21, 24, 26-28, 30 and 31 stand rejected under the
enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The examiner finds
(Answer, page 39), claims 27-30 “are broadly drawn towards inbred corn plant
I015011 further defined as having a genome comprising any single locus
conversion, encoding any trait; or wherein the single locus was stably inserted
into a corn genome by transformation.” The examiner presents several lines of
argument under this heading. We take each in turn.
I. Retaining the morphological fidelity of the original inbred line:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 30, emphasis added), “[I]t is not
clear that single loci may be introduced into the genetic background of a plant
through traditional breeding, while otherwise maintaining the genetic and
morphological fidelity of the original inbred variety….” With reference to
Hunsperger, Kraft, and Eshed the examiner asserts (Answer, page 38), “[t]he
rejection raises the issue of how linkage drag hampers the insertion of single
genes alone into a plant by backcrossing, while recovering all of the original
plant’s genome.”
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007