BRAKE v. SINGH - Page 34




                Interference 102,728                                                                                                          
                         Singh argues that the Brake 1 specification “teaches away” from an “n=0”                                             
                construct.  Paper No. 30, pp. 13-14.  According to Singh, the Brake 1 specification                                           
                         clearly states that the “useful DNA sequences which can be used for cassettes                                        
                         for expression,” having the formula:                                                                                 
                                 TR-L-(R-R(GAXYCX)n-W-(Gene*)d)y                                                                              
                         contain an nN which “will generally range from 1 to 3, more usually from 2 to 3”                                     
                         [id., p. 14].                                                                                                        
                Therefore, one skilled in the art would determine that the “glu-ala” or “asp-ala”25                                           
                sequences would be necessary for expression.  Id.  Singh relies on paragraph 9 of                                             
                Dr. Falkinham’s declaration for support.26  Id.   We find this argument unpersuasive.                                         
                         First, Singh has confused the factors used to demonstrate that a disclosure is                                       
                non-enabling (35 U.S.C. § 112) with the factors used to demonstrate the                                                       
                nonobviousness of an invention (35 U.S.C. § 103).  That is, a prior art reference which                                       
                is said to “teach away” from the claimed invention, is a factor which is considered when                                      



                         25 Although Singh does not explain, the significance of the “asp-ala” sequence,                                      
                we find from a genetic dictionary (BX 25) that the (GAXYCX) sequence of Brake 1                                               
                formula can encode glu-ala or asp-ala.  We further find from Brake 1 that both amino                                          
                acid combinations are recognized by the DPAP A enzyme.  The ‘325 Application, p. 10,                                          
                lines 10-17.  We point out that this finding is in agreement with our discussion in                                           
                footnote 13, supra.                                                                                                           
                         26 Dr. Falkinham states:                                                                                             
                                 9.      Although there was a theoretical presentation of the n=0 construct                                   
                                 in the Brake 1 application, there was a clear statement that “n” in the                                      
                                 construct was “preferably 2 or 3” (column 3, line 25) or “usually 2 or 3”                                    
                                 (column 2, line 68).  In addition, the only example described in the Brake 1                                 
                                 application, pYEGF-8, produced not an n=0 construct, but a construct                                         
                                 which would produce Glu-Ala-EGF.  One skilled in the art would have                                          
                                 determined from the Brake specification that the n=0 construct was not                                       
                                 desirable [emphases added] [Falkinham declaration, p. 3, para. 9].                                           
                                                                     34                                                                       





Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007