Patents Relating to Donor Vector
Patent or Publication No | Title, Independent Claims and Summary | Assignee | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US 5888732
|
Title – Recombinational cloning using engineered recombination sites
The claims are generally drawn to:
This is potentially a very broad “product” claim, depending on the interpretation of the term “recombination site”. In the broadest sense this might be read to imply a claim over vectors used in double Campbell recombination reactions. Potentially it may cover all Gateway vectors, not just pDONR vectors. Is this claim justifiable? Is there overlap with prior art: such as vectors that have been used in Campbell recombination reactions?
Again, another potentially very broad product claim. This time not necessarily to a vector – it could also be interpreted to cover PCR products flanked by recombination sites.
Claims a kit “comprising” a similar Vector Donor to that described above.
The term “do not recombine with each other” is a common feature of many of the patent claims. This may be necessary to avoid issues of prior art. Theoretically, single-cross-over Campbell recombination events can lead to integration and de-integration of two nucleic acid molecules. However, such DNA molecules (or vectors) mightcontain recombination sites that recombine with each other.
SEQ IDs 1-16 Refer to specific sequences found within the core recombination sites. While SEQ IDs 6-16 are specific sequences found within the attB, attP, attR, and attL recombination sites, SEQ IDs 1-5 refer to sequences containing “wobbles”, and so claim many possible recombination sites. It is interesting to speculate that recombination sequences not listed within this group might constitute a work-around for this particular product claim.
Claims a method for creating the intermediate co-integrant DNA molecule. Chimeric of both the Insert and Vector Donors.
|
Life Technologies Inc., Rockville,MD.(Later acquired by Invitrogen) |
|||||||
US6277608
|
Title – Recombinational cloning using nucleic acids having recombination sites
The claims are generally drawn to:
Again, this is a broad methods claim. The language of the single independent claim of the ‘608 patent is different with respect to “substantially recombine with each other“, from “recombination sites do not recombine with each other” in the ‘732 patent above. What does “substantially” mean? Does this imply that some “low” level of recombination can occur between recombination sites? Further dependent claims specifiy the sequences of the recombination sites, as in the ‘732 patent above. |