Appeal No. 2004-2343 Page 12
Application No. 09/772,520
(b) the same isozyme typing profile as shown in Table 7.
11. The plant part of claim 10, wherein said cell is further defined as having:
(a) The same SSR profile as shown in Table 6; or
(b) The same isozyme typing profile as shown in Table 7.
Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claims 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
Claims 15 and 17-20
Claims 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as indefinite in the recitation of the phrase “capable of expressing,” or
“capable of regenerating.” According to the examiner (Answer, page 9), the
claims do “not make clear if the plant actually expresses the traits, or when or
under what conditions the traits are expressed.” In this regard, the examiner
finds (Answer, page 10),
while the plant has the capacity to express the characteristics, for
some reason it may not. Certain characteristics of a plant are
expressed only at certain times of its life cycle, and are incapable of
being expressed at other times. The colors of flower parts such as
silks, or fruit parts such as husks, are examples. The promoters of
many genes conferring traits require a transcription factor to
become active. Is a plant that has such a gene, but not the
transcription factor, considered “capable of expressing” that gene,
and the trait associated with that gene, and is such a plant
encompassed by the claims?
To address the examiner’s concerns, we find it sufficient to state that if a plant
has the capacity to express the claimed characteristics it meets the requirement
of the claim regarding “capable of,” notwithstanding that due to a particular phase
of the life cycle the plant is not currently expressing a particular characteristic.
Alternatively, if a plant is incapable of expressing the claimed characteristics at
any phase of the life cycle, because it lacks, for example, the “transcription
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007