Interference No. 103,203
subject matter encompassed therewithin.
Second, as to their remaining arguments, Edgington et al. allege that the involved
Lawn et al. ‘989 Application contains numerous deficiencies (see (i)-(v), supra), but they
have not explained how said deficiencies fail to provide an adequate written description of
the subject matter described in claims 9, 11 through 14, 30 and
32 through 38, corresponding to the count. All the referenced claims encompass the DNA
sequence encoding human tissue factor shown in Figure 2 of the involved application, or
specify the nucleotide sequence intended in the claim itself. Since Lawn et al. disclose the
claimed nucleotide sequences in the involved ‘989 Application, we find that said
application provides an adequate written description of the subject matter encompassed
by the claims corresponding to Count 2. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
(9) Edgington et al.’s Preliminary Motion 4 for judgment stating that Lawn et al.’s
claims which correspond to the count are unpatentable because the involved ‘989
Application fails to satisfy the enablement and best mode requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is DENIED.
Enablement
As we understand it, Edgington et al. contend that lack of enablement is
established, inter alia, by (i) Lawn et al.’s statement in their benefit applications that “[t]he
first 32 amino acid residues are mostly hydrophobic amino acids and probably
represent an amino-terminal signal sequence peptide,” (ii) Lawn et al.’s failure to provide
evidence of a deposit of clone 8TF14 and vectors pCIS2.8c26D, pCIS2.CXXNH and
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007