Ex Parte Latta - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1152                                                                             
                Application 10/660,924                                                                       
                Atkinson recognizes that NOD mice – despite species differences – have                       
                value in predicting outcome in human disease.                                                
                      Appellant provided two declarations by Dr. David Scharp                                
                (“Declaration of David Scharp, M.D.”, dated Nov. 25, 2003, and “Second                       
                Declaration of David Scharp, M.D. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132”, dated Apr. 28,                   
                2005) showing that NOD mice who received the treatment described in the                      
                Specification were prevented from becoming diabetic (Supp. Appeal Br. 5-6;                   
                Declaration of David Scharp, M.D., ¶ 5-8).  For example, Scharp showed                       
                that 3 out 10 mice who received the tolerizing dose of encapsulated islet                    
                cells, prior to the onset of diabetes, remained diabetes-free after eight weeks              
                (Declaration of David Scharp, M.D., ¶ 10). Atkinson states that NOD mouse                    
                are the favored model for Type I diabetes (Atkinson, at 601, col. 1), and as                 
                discussed above, considered them an important tool for understanding and                     
                developing treatments for diabetes (Atkinson, at 604, col. 1).2  Thus, we find               
                the post-filing evidence in the Scharp Declarations sufficient “to prove that                
                the disclosure was in fact enabling when filed.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560,                  
                1576, fn.19, 34 USPQ2d 1436, fn.19 (Fed. Cir. 1995).                                         
                      The Examiner’s position appears to be that because mouse models                        
                don’t always work,3 they cannot be relied upon to enable a specification –                   
                                                                                                            
                2 Dr. Scharp makes similar comments about the value of NOD mice,                             
                including their proven value in developing markers for predicting human                      
                patients who will develop clinical Type I diabetes (Second Declaration of                    
                David Scharp, M.D. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, ¶ 2).                                            
                3 “Mestas . . . teach that there exist significant differences between mice and              
                humans in immune system development . . . [quoting Mestas:] [‘]As                            
                therapies for human diseases become ever more sophisticated and                              
                specifically targeted[,] it becomes increasing important to understand the                   
                potential limitations of extrapolating data from mice to humans. The                         
                                                     6                                                       

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013