Ex Parte SADELAIN et al - Page 7


                Appeal No. 2004-1930                                                   Page 7                  
                Application No. 08/940,544                                                                     

                provide a written description of the invention can the patent law avoid depriving              
                actual inventors of selected embodiments within such lists from the fruits of their            
                labors, and avoid providing a disincentive for research and development.”  Id. at              
                7.  The Eshhar reference, appellants contend, does not provide a written                       
                description of CD28 as Eshhar only mentions CD28 twice, provides no examples                   
                of fusion proteins containing CD28, does not provide a diagram of such a fusion                
                protein or nucleotide, and also provides no sequences of a protein or                          
                polynucleotide that includes CD28.  See id. at 8.                                              
                      Section 102(b) of title 35 requires that “the invention was known or                     
                described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention          
                thereof by the applicant for patent.”  In In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ                
                783 (CCPA1969), the court dealt with the question of whether “‘[w]hat constitutes              
                the measure of ‘the invention’ to determine whether what is claimed is a legally               
                recognizable invention must also constitute ‘the invention’ for determining                    
                whether something lacks novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).’”  In re Schoenwald,                   
                964 F.2d 1122, 1123, 22 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis in                        
                original).  The Hafner court noted that:                                                       
                      In essence, appellant is contending that a double standard should                        
                      not be applied in determining the adequacy of a disclosure to                            
                      anticipate under § 102, on the one hand, and to support the                              
                      patentability of a claim under § 112 on the other.  He feels that a                      
                      disclosure adequate for the one purpose is necessarily adequate                          
                      for the other but, unhappily for him, this is not so.  As we shall                       
                      develop, a disclosure lacking a teaching of how to use a fully                           
                      disclosed compound for a specific, substantial utility or of how to                      
                      use for such purpose a compound produced by a fully disclosed                            
                      process is, under the present state of the law, entirely adequate to                     
                      anticipate a claim to either the product or the process and, at the                      





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007