Interference No. 103,906 We have construed Dionne’s claims broadly to encompass a method of treating any viral infection in a mammal. Having done so, we held those claims to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the scope of enablement provided by Dionne’s specification is not commensurate with the breadth of the claims. However, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the claims in question are limited to treatment of infections caused only by “HBV and retroviruses such as HIV,”6 we would still hold Dionne’s claims unpatentable for essentially the same reason. This is because the sole in vitro test of antiviral activity reported in Dionne’s specification (Example 3) relates only to a single strain of a single retrovirus (HIV-1 strain RF). No other results are reported against any other HIV strains, let alone against any other type of retrovirus. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Sommadossi (LR-198): It is accepted in the field of antiviral therapy that observation of activity against one virus, or even two viruses, is an insufficient basis on which to reasonably predict broad spectrum anti- viral activity, or even activity against related viruses. [Underlining added for emphasis.] In view of Dr. Sommadossi’s testimony, the evidence of 6This is the construction favored by Dionne (DRB-2). 16Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007