Interference No. 103,203
nucleotides 1121, 1141, 1341, 1851 and 1861. Id., p. 34. According to Edgington
et al., because of these discrepancies in the nucleotide sequences, the earlier-filed ‘743
Application does not establish a constructive reduction to practice of a species within the
scope of the count. Id., p. 33. We disagree.
Not one of the nucleotide sequence discrepancies pointed out by Edgington
et al. is in the region which codes for the mature tissue factor protein; i.e, in the region
encoding amino acid residue 1 to residue 263 of Figure 1 [of the Edgington patent]. In
order to establish constructive reduction to practice of a species within the scope of Count
2, the Lawn et al. benefit applications need only to disclose a DNA segment comprising a
nucleotide sequence as described therein (i.e., as described in Count 2). Weil v. Fritz,
572 F.2d at 865 n.16, 196 USPQ at 608 n.16. To that end, we direct attention to Figure 2a
of the ‘743 Application wherein Lawn et al. disclose a complete and correct nucleotide
sequence encoding the referenced amino acids . Thus, since the ‘743 Application
discloses a “DNA segment comprising a nucleotide sequence
coding for a human tissue factor heavy chain protein having an amino acid residue
sequence represented by Figure 1 [of the Edgington patent] from about residue 1 to about
residue 263,” as required by Count 2, we hold that Lawn et al. are entitled to the benefit of
the ‘743 Application filing date of February 12, 1987, for a species within the scope of the
count.
Edgington et al. allege that the Lawn et al. parent applications fail to enable one
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007