Appeal No. 94-3676
Application 07/949,327
For further explanation, see In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008,
1012,
10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(The Board found that
Gosteli’s priority papers “did not provide a sufficient
written description of the entire subject matter of [the]
claims . . . as required by the first paragraph of section
112.")
The importance of Scheiber and Gosteli to this case is
highlighted because we find that Application 06/438,128, filed
November 1, 1982, does not describe the full scope of the DNA
claimed in this application. Note, for example, that Claim 27
is explicitly directed to and appealed Claim 12 encompasses
“[a]n essentially purified and isolated DNA sequence encoding
a non-human mammalian interferon having the amino acid
sequence essentially as set forth in Figures . . . 14a-e and
15 hereof.” The “amino acid sequence” and corresponding DNA
structure described in Figures 14a-e and 15 of this
application do not appear in Application 06/438,128, filed
November 1, 1982, i.e., Figures 14a-e and 15 appear for the
first time in Application 07/104,461, filed October 2, 1987.
As stated in a most recent decision in Regents of the Univ. Of
- 16 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007