Ex Parte ALIZON et al - Page 10




              Appeal No. 1997-2528                                                                                      
              Application No. 07/810,908                                                                                

                     which is disclosed in the specification.  Rather, a prior application itself                       
                     must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in                     
                     the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed                                
                     invention as of the filing date sought. .  . [A]ll that is necessary to satisfy                    
                     the description requirement is to show that one is “in possession” of the                          
                     invention . . . One shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by                          
                     describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which                         
                     makes it obvious. . . Although the exact terms need not be used in haec                            
                     verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the                       
                     claimed subject matter. (Citations omitted).                                                       
                     . . .                                                                                              
                     It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of                        
                     Section 112 that the disclosure, when combined with knowledge in the art,                          
                     would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might                            
                     have envisioned, but failed to disclose.  Each application in the chain must                       
                     describe the claimed features.                                                                     

              The question then, is whether appellants have done so in the parent, grandparent and                      
              priority applications.                                                                                    
                     Clavel3 teaches using HIV-2 cell lysates to radioimmuno-precipitate anti-HIV-2                     
              antibodies from patient sera.  Clavel discloses that antigens from LAV-1 and LAV-2 can                    
              be used for seroepidemiological studies, including envelop protein.  Clavel, page 345,                    
              column 1.  Clavel is proper prior art to the present application because the parent cases                 
              of the present application include no written description of all of the polypeptides within               
              the scope of the claimed invention.  We find that the disclosure of parent application                    
              Serial No. 06/835,228, U.S. Patent No. 4,839,288, describes, at best, the claimed                         
              polypeptides polymerase, Q protein, Env, and F protein (figure 1), and fails to describe                  

                     3  The Clavel publication is authored by a different inventive entity than the                     
              claimed invention.                                                                                        
                                                          10                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007