Opinion ID: 2653549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: contacting said media with a recombinant

Text: yeast microorganism expressing an engineered isobutanol biosynthetic pathway wherein said pathway comprises the following substrate to product conversions;

(pathway step b);
ketoisovalerate (pathway step c);
(pathway step d); and
step e); and wherein a) the substrate to product conversion of step
zyme; b) the substrate to product conversion of step (ii) is performed by an acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase enzyme; BUTAMAX(TM) ADVANCED BIOFUELS v. GEVO, INC. 7 c) the substrate to product conversion of step (iii) is performed by an acetohydroxy acid dehy- dratase enzyme; d) the substrate to product conversion of step (iv) is performed by a decarboxylase enzyme; and e) the substrate to product conversion of step (v) is performed by an alcohol dehydrogenase en- zyme; whereby isobutanol is produced. ’889 Patent col. 325 ll. 14–43. As with the ’188 patent, the primary issue with the ’889 patent on appeal involves step (ii): the conversion of AL to DHIV using acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase enzyme, i.e., KARI. Unlike claim 1 of the ’188 patent, claim 1 of the ’889 patent does not refer to any EC classification number. Butamax alleges that Gevo has infringed claim 1 of the ’889 patent and claims 2–14 and 16–19 dependent therefrom.