Ex Parte JUNE - Page 5




              Appeal No. 1999-1245                                                                                     
              Application No. 08/245,282                                                                               


              kinase (PI3K).   A preferred agent which inhibits PI3K activity in a T cell is the fungal                
              metabolite wortmannin.   Other agents include the bioflavonoid, quercetin, and the                       
              compound LY294002.   Specification, page 6.                                                              
                     Alternatively, a T cell may be contacted both with an agent which inhibits PI3K                   
              activity and with an agent which inhibits protein tyrosine kinase activity, such as                      
              herbimycin A, or a derivative or analogue thereof.  Id.   The method of the invention is                 
              applicable to the treatment of autoimmune disease and other disorders associated with                    
              an abnormal immune response.   Specification, page 7.                                                    


              35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph                                                                         
                    Claims 46-60, 85 and 86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph                     
              as unpatentable for lack of enablement as to how to make and use the claimed                             
              invention.   We note that the term “modulate” as it appears in the claims is interpreted                 
              by the examiner to mean “inhibit”, in accordance with a restriction requirement and                      
              subsequent election made on September 14, 1995 (Paper No. 6) and December 8,                             
              1995 (Paper No. 8).  Answer, pages 5-6.   For the purposes of this appeal, we adhere                     
              to the examiner's interpretation of the term ?modulate.”                                                 
                     In order to establish a prima facie case of non-enablement, the examiner must                     
              provide a reasonable explanation as to why the scope of protection provided by a claim                   
              is not adequately enabled by the disclosure.  See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,                           

                                                          5                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007