Ex Parte ZHANG et al - Page 3



            Appeal No. 2001-0693                                                          Page 3              
            Application No. 08/898,300                                                                        
            describes the present invention in terms of the amphiphilic peptides being of 12 or more          
            amino acids in length.  However, that is not to say that the original disclosure of this          
            application fails to describes amphiphilic peptides which have the alternating,                   
            complementary and structurally compatible requirements but are fewer than 12 amino                
            acids in length.  For example, original claim 1 of this application was directed to a             
            method for in vitro cell culture as is present claim 37 to place no length restriction on         
            the amphiphilic peptides which form the macroscopic membranes.                                    
                   In this regard, we note that the examiner has not rejected the claims on appeal            
            under the written description requirement  of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.  Given            
            that appellants have described an invention broader than claim 1 of the '483 patent, the          
            issue becomes whether one skilled in the art would be able to make and use the                    
            claimed invention to the extent it reads upon amphiphilic peptides having the                     
            alternating, complementary, structurally compatible properties but contain fewer than 12          
            amino acids.                                                                                      
                   Viewed in this light, the issue raised by the examiner is one of undue                     
            experimentation.  In considering the examiner's concern in this regard, we find the               
            following passage from PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1564,             
            37 USPQ2d 1618, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 1996), instructive:                                               
                   In unpredictable art areas, this court has refused to find broad generic                   
                   claims enabled by specifications that demonstrate the enablement of only                   
                   one or a few embodiments and do not demonstrate with reasonable                            
                   specificity how to make and use other potential embodiments across the                     
                   full scope of the claim.  See, e.g., In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1050-52,                 
                   29 USPQ2d 2010, 2013-15 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai                            
                   Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d. 1200, 1212-14, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1026-                         
                   28 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 856 (1991); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d at                
                   496, 20 USPQ2d at 1445.  Enablement is lacking in those cases, the                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007