[Update September 17, 2012: in an email, PBL confirmed that the new patents are part of their non-exclusive agreement with Alnylam.]
Addendum: I reviewed some of the prosecution history of the Baulcombe patents and it seems that for '285 to be granted it had to overcome a 'Crooke' patent (in this case US 6,107,094). I've always found it a travesty that the Crookes often get cited during RNAi trigger patent prosecutions- although they have no scientific relationship to the biological RNAi process. It is thus pleasing to see that the Examiner in this case saw the light that a double-stranded RNA that directly inhibits an enzyme (i.e. a PROTEIN) does not represent prior art for a dsRNA that targets an mRNA. Duh!