Ex Parte Kovesdi et al - Page 7




                 Appeal No. 2004-1259                                                                                                             
                 Application No. 09/832,355                                                                                                       
                 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,                                              
                 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,                                                  
                 1373, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262-65,                                                
                 191 USPQ 90, 96-98 (CCPA 1976).                                                                                                  
                         Our reviewing court has held in Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562,                                          
                 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) that                                                                                       
                         [a] fairly uniform standard for determining compliance with the "written                                                 
                         description" requirement has been maintained throughout: "Although [the                                                  
                         applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, ...                                             
                         the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to                                               
                         recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872                                                 
                         F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations                                                        
                         omitted).  "[T]he test for sufficiency of support in a  parent application is                                            
                         whether the disclosure of the application relied upon 'reasonably conveys                                                
                         to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later                                                
                         claimed subject matter.'" Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d                                               
                         1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re  Kaslow,                                                   
                         707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).                                                              
                         Upon our review of the specification, particularly at paragraph [0063], we find the                                      
                 specification reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at the                                          
                 time the application was filed.   The examiner argues there is no disclosure of the now                                          
                 claimed “at least about 60%, which is equivalent to '60% or more', which would include                                           
                 species with greater than 70%, the highest number recited.”  We disagree.                                                        
                         The specification, page 27, numbered paragraph [0063], indicates that the                                                
                 HBNF-MK second peptide portion can include any suitable HBNF-MK peptide or                                                       
                 fragment.   Preferably the HBNF-MK is the naturally occurring HBNF.   Thus, it would                                             
                 reasonably appear from the specification that the full length HBNF peptide is                                                    
                                                                        7                                                                         





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007