Ex Parte LEE - Page 22


                 Appeal No.  2004-1346                                                       Page 22                  
                 Application No.  08/971,338                                                                          
                        nervous system are the support cells, GDF-1 will likely prove to be                           
                        of therapeutic benefit in the treatment of disease processes leading                          
                        to demyelination.                                                                             
                               Many of the members of this superfamily, including GDF-1,                              
                        are also likely to be clinically useful for tissue repair and                                 
                        remodeling.  For example, the remarkable capacity of the bone                                 
                        morphogenetic proteins to induce new bone growth … has                                        
                        suggested their utility for the treatment of bone defects caused by                           
                        trauma, surgery, or degenerative diseases like osteoporosis….                                 
                               A determination of the specific clinical settings in which                             
                        GDF-1 will be used as a diagnostic or as a therapeutic tool await                             
                        further characterization of the expression patterns and biological                            
                        properties of GDF-1 both under normal physiological conditions                                
                        and during disease states.                                                                    
                        Consistent with the cited sections of appellant’s disclosure, the examiner                    
                 points out (Answer, page 8), “[t]he specification speculates on possible activities                  
                 of GDF-1[,] [n]one of the particular activities disclosed for other TGF-β                            
                 superfamily members have been demonstrated for this protein in the                                   
                 specification and none were known at the time of the invention.”  Now, with                          
                 evidence from a reference published a decade after appellant’s effective filing                      
                 date, appellant asserts that their prediction was correct.  Specifically, the                        
                 “prediction” that a “second potential diagnostic use for GDF-1 is as an indicator                    
                 for the presence of developmental anomalies in prenatal screens for potential                        
                 birth defects … [and] may indicate the presence of structural defects in the                         
                 developing fetus.”  Specification, bridging paragraph, pages 12-13.  In our                          
                 opinion, appellant’s specification cannot be stretched this far.  As the examiner                    
                 explains (Answer, page 21), Rankin uses “information, materials, assays, and/or                      
                 techniques that were not known at the time of the invention and thus make clear                      
                 that one of ordinary skill in the art trying to determine what activity GDF-1 had at                 
                 the time of the invention would have been required to go beyond routine                              






Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007