NEMERSON et al. V. EDGINGTON et al. V. LAWN et al. - Page 33


                Interference No. 103,203                                                                                                      

                347, p. 38.  According to Edgington et al., the earlier-filed and involved Lawn et al.                                        
                applications direct those skilled in the art to extract recombinant tissue factor protein from                                
                the medium.  Id., p. 39, para. 1.  We find this argument to be misdirected.                                                   
                         Again, we point out that Count 2 is directed to a DNA segment comprising a                                           
                nucleotide sequence coding for amino acids 1 to 263 of the mature human tissue factor                                         
                protein.  Count 2 is not directed to the tissue factor protein or a method of isolating said                                  
                protein.  Since Edgington et al. have not explained why the method of isolating the tissue                                    
                factor protein is necessary to carry out the best mode of making a species within the                                         
                scope of the count, we do not find that they have sustained their burden of establishing that                                 
                the earlier-filed Lawn et al. applications violate the best mode requirement of § 112.                                        
                         Edgington et al. argue that the Lawn et al. inventors do not satisfy the requirements                                
                of constructive reduction to practice because they were not certain of what they had on                                       
                February 12, 1987.  Edgington Brief, Paper No. 347, p. 42.  Edgington et al. do not                                           
                mention the nucleotide sequence set forth in Figure 2 of the ‘743 Application, but rather                                     
                they focus on the protein and urge that the specification states that said Figure depicts “the                                
                predicted amino acids of the tissue factor protein together with a presumed leader signal                                     
                ... .  Also, the methionine codon in the region of nucleotides 100-102 was only presumed to                                   
                initiate translation of pretissue factor protein.”  Id.  We find this argument to be misdirected.                             
                         In our view, Edgington et al. have not considered the quoted passage in the context                                  
                of the ‘743 Application as a whole.  That is, we understand from the application, as a                                        
                whole, that the quoted passage intends to convey the concept that Figure 2 shows the                                          


                argument to mean that the Lawn et al. parent applications do not disclose a best mode for making a                            
                species within the scope of the count.                                                                                        
                                                                     33                                                                       



Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007