Interference No. 103,203
count of the involved ‘989 Application are not enabled because the specification fails to
disclose whether clone 8TF14 and vectors pCIS2.8c26D, pCIS2.CXXNH and pCIS.TF
8
were appropriately deposited, we point out that not one of Lawn et al.’s claims
corresponding to the count requires the use of the referenced clone and vectors. Thus, this
argument does not address a limitation present in the claims. In addition, enablement
does not require that the specification disclose that which is well known in the art.
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94
(Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987). Here, the Lawn et al. application
states that there are numerous eucaryotic and procaryotic expression vectors known in the
art. See, e.g., the ‘989 Application, pp. 22-23. Accordingly, absent evidence to the
contrary, we find that those skilled in the art would have understood that any vector known
in the art at the time the application was filed could have been employed to express the
human tissue factor DNA sequences disclosed therein.
As to Edgington et al.’s arguments with respect to the description of the signal
sequence peptide and the starting material for the cDNA library in the ‘989 Application,9
we again point out that said application discloses the complete and correct nucleotide
sequence of the human tissue factor protein. See, e.g., Figure 2 of the ‘989 Application.
Absent evidence to the contrary, we find that the disclosure of said nucleotide sequence is
8Paper No. 167, pp. 4-7.
Paper No. 167, p. 4 (para. 7) and p. 7 (para. 18).9
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007