Interference 103,579
and this has perhaps led to their premature dismissal
in certain instances.
11 “Antisense RNA and DNA” in Modern Cell Biology 3 (James
A.H. Murray ed. 1992). Based on the evidence before the
district court, we conclude that the court also did not
err in finding that antisense technology was highly
unpredictable.
The court added, Enzo Biochem. Inc. v. Calgene Inc., 188 F.3d
at 1375, 52 USPQ2d at 1139:
Calgene noted, if Calgene were able to explain why
antisense could not be applied in a reproducible
fashion, that by itself would have been a
“groundbreaking scientific discovery” . . . .
The court also concluded that “the district court did not clearly
err in finding that the quantity of experimentation required to
practice antisense was quite high.” Id. at 1374, 52 USPQ2d
at 1138.
Nevertheless, this is a different case with different
evidence and other facts. Notwithstanding its findings with
regard to predictability at the time, the Enzo court noted, “In
view of the rapid advances in science, we recognize that what may
be unpredictable at one point in time may become predictable at
a later time.” Id. at 1374 n. 10, 52 USPQ2d at 1138 n. 10.
Moreover, the question of predictability in this case does not
require us to consider whether the specifications of the
respective parties’ involved applications would have enabled one
skilled in the art at the time to make and use the full scope of
the subject matter claimed without undue experimentation. The
-88-
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007