Ex Parte Stockert et al - Page 5

           Appeal 2007-0543                                                                        
           Application 10/023,182                                                                  

           not necessary to satisfy the requirement (id. at 926, 69 USPQ2d at 1894).  In           
           University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d           
           1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court explained that “[a] description of a genus of    
           cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of            
           cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of      
           a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which           
           features constitute a substantial portion of the genus” (id. at 1569, 43 USPQ2d         
           at 1406).  In addition, the court subsequently clarified that “the written description  
           requirement would be met for [a claim] . . . if [a] functional characteristic . . . were
           coupled with a disclosed correlation between that function and a structure that is      
           sufficiently known or disclosed.”  Enzo Biochem, 296 F.3d at 1324-25,                   
           63 USPQ2d at 1613.                                                                      
                 Finally, the court has made it clear that other factors, including the level of   
           knowledge and skill in the art, are relevant to whether a description satisfies § 112.  
           See Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir.               
           2005) (“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic claims to              
           biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing         
           knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the         
           maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and   
           other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.”).                              
                 Here the specification discloses more than forty representative peptides.         
           Each of the peptides is structurally identical to a portion of NY-ESO-1, the protein    
           encoded by SEQ ID NO: 1, and each of the peptides was identified on the basis of        
           what was known about MHC binding motifs at the time of the invention.                   
           Moreover, at least three of the peptides were shown to meet the functional              
           limitations of the claims using a conventional cytotoxicity assay.  We conclude that    

                                                5                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013