Appeal No. 94-3676
Application 07/949,327
§ 112, first and second paragraphs, we are not surprised that
little weight was given to the declarations of Drs. Neuberger
and Barclay. The declaratory evidence appears to be
inconsistent with the relative scope of enablement provided by
the disclosures in appellants’ prior applications, especially
when comparing the scope of enablement in Application
07/104,461, filed October 2, 1987, to Application 06/438,128,
filed November 1, 1982, in light of the intervening art (e.g.,
Higashi et al. (Higashi), “Structure and Expression of a
Cloned cDNA for Mouse Interferon-J,” J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 258,
pp. 9522-9529 (1983); Leung et al. (Leung), “The Structure and
Bacterial Expression of Three Distinct Bovine Interferon-J
Genes,” Bio/Technology, Vol. 2, pp. 458-464 (1984); and Capon
et al. (Capon), “Two Distinct Families of Human and Bovine
Interferon-I Genes Are Coordinately Expressed and Encode
Functional Polypeptides,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, Vol.
5, No. 4, pp. 768-779 (Apr. 1985)).
No evidence of record indicates that an amino acid
sequence for any known non-human mammalian interferon had been
determined let alone compared to that of human interferon
before November 1, 1982, the filing date of Application
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007