Interference 103,579
form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it. In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903, 7 USPQ2d at 1681.
We direct the parties’ attention to the Background section
of Enzo Biochem. Inc. v. Calgene Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1366-1369,
52 USPQ2d 1129, 1131-1133 (Fed. Cir. 1999), for its general
description of the state of antisense technology from about
1990 to 1992. Most especially consider the following footnote
at 1367 n. 4, 52 USPQ2d at 1132 n. 4 (emphasis added):
Although there is no universally agreed-upon mechanism
for the manner in which antisense works to block gene
expression in a cell, . . . [Figure 2 at 1367, 52 USPQ2d
at 1132,] presents one possible mechanism.
In Enzo Biochem. Inc. v. Calgene Inc., 188 F.3d at 1368,
52 USPQ2d at 1133, the court considered the following
representative cell, method, and construct claims:
(1) A prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell containing a non-
native DNA construct, which construct produces an RNA
which regulates the function of a gene, said DNA
construct containing the following operably linked DNA
segments:
(A) a transcriptional promoter segment;
(B) a transcription termination segment;
and therebetween
(C) a DNA segment;
whereby transcription of the DNA segment produces a
ribonucleotide sequence which does not naturally occur
in the cell, is complementary to a ribonucleotide
sequence transcribed from said gene, and said non-
naturally occurring ribonucleotide sequence regulates
the function of the gene.
3. A method of regulating the function of a gene in a
-86-
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007