Appeal No. 2004-2343 Page 28
Application No. 09/772,520
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 6, 11, 24, 25
and 27-31 under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Enablement:
Claims 27-30 stand rejected under the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. The examiner finds (Answer, page 41), claims 27-30 “are
broadly drawn towards inbred corn plant I026458 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 all the morphological and physiological traits of I026458:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 41, emphasis added),
appellant’s specification “does not teach any I026458 plants comprising a single
locus conversion produced by backcrossing, wherein the resultant plant retains
all of its morphological and physiological traits in addition to exhibiting the single
trait conferred by the introduced single locus. With reference to Hunsperger,
Kraft, and Eshed the examiner asserts (Answer, bridging sentence, pages 44-
45), “[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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007