Appeal No. 2004-2317 Page 28
Application No. 09/771,938
conferred by the introduced single locus.” With reference to Hunsperger, Kraft,
and Eshed the examiner asserts (Answer, page 41), “[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.”
We note, however, that claims 27-30 do not require that the single locus
conversion plant retain all of the morphological and physiological traits of the
parent plant in addition to exhibiting the single trait conferred by the introduction
of the single loci. Nor do claims 27-30 require that the resultant plant retain all of
the original plant’s genome in addition to the single locus transferred into the
inbred via the backcrossing technique. As appellant explains (specification,
bridging paragraph, pages 29-30, emphasis added),
[t]he term single locus converted plant as used herein refers to
those corn plants which are developed by a plant breeding
technique called backcrossing wherein essentially all of the desired
morphological and physiological characteristics of an inbred are
recovered in addition to the single locus transferred into the inbred
via the backcrossing technique.
See also appellant’s definition of single locus converted (conversion) plant at
page 23 of the specification. We find nothing in the appellant’s specification to
indicate that the single locus converted plant retains all of the morphological and
physiological traits, or all of the genome, of the parent plant in addition to the
single locus transferred via the backcrossing technique. Accordingly, we
disagree with the examiner’s construction of claims 27-30 as “directed to exactly
plant I015036, further comprising the single locus,” which appears to disregard
appellant’s definition of a single locus converted plant. See Answer, page 43,
emphasis added.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007