Appeal No. 1996-0160
Application 07/898,691
the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in
scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented
must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of §
112 unless there is a reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained
therein which must be relied on for enabling support”).
We agree with the examiner that one skilled in the art would have generally
expected that the substitution of one amino acid for another would alter the binding activity
of a peptide to a receptor. However, the relevant issue, here, is whether such person
would have expected the specific amino acid substitutions required by the claims to result
in the production of a Peptide T analogue which would not be useful for the treatment of
TSP. In the case before us, we find that the specification provides evidence that the core
peptide, Peptide T, is useful for treating TSP patients. Specification, pp. 41-42. In
addition, the Pert reference discloses that three analogues of Peptide T inhibit the binding
of the gp120 protein of HTLV-III to brain membranes, in vitro. Pert, the abstract. Although
Pert is directed to the use of the analogues in an assay intended to test the efficacy of
drugs for a different disease (AIDS), the reference, nevertheless, demonstrates that the
biological activity of peptide T analogues is maintained when alterations are made in the
amino acid sequence. Thus, in our view, the teachings of Pert would have suggested to
those skilled in the art that Peptide T analogues, such as those set forth in the claims,
would be useful for the treatment of TSP. Accordingly, since the evidence of record, does
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007