Appeal No. 96-2137
Application 07/668,920
claims on appeal. As set forth in In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 1232, 181 USPQ 31, 34
(CCPA 1974)(footnote omitted):
It is an applicant’s obligation to supply enabling disclosure without
reliance on what others may publish after he has filed an application on
what is supposed to be a completed invention. If he cannot supply
enabling information, he is not yet in a position to file.
Appellants rely upon Epstein for its later published results obtained from a labeled
monoclonal antibody denominated TNT-1. As in the case of the monoclonal antibodies
set forth in Table 1 of the specification, appellants have not described with sufficient
specificity the starting antigen used in the preparation of the hybridoma. None of the
hybridomas which produce the monoclonal antibodies described in Table 1 or the
hybridoma which produces TNT-1 appear to have been deposited under appropriate
conditions so that they would be available to the public if this application matured into a
patent. It is not apparent on this record how one skilled in the art would go about re-
creating any one of these monoclonal antibodies or make a monoclonal antibody
having the differential binding ability required by the present invention. Furthermore, in
reviewing the disclosure of Epstein, it does not appear that TNT-1 was obtained from
using the screening method set forth in Example 2 of the present application. In other
words, there does not appear to be a nexus linking the screening method set forth in
Example 2 of the present specification and the results obtained in Epstein. Thus, it
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007