Ex Parte PAGE - Page 12




                            Glaxo’s preliminary motions involving Cabilly’s written description                                       
                       32.     Glaxo has filed its preliminary motion 3 moving for judgment that the Cabilly                          
               involved claims are unpatentable based on a lack of written description under 35 USC § 112, ¶ 1.                       
                       33.     Glaxo acknowledges that the involved ‘611 Cabilly application is essentially the                       
               same as Cabilly’s ‘419  application (Paper 203 at 14).  When we wish to refer to the ‘611 and the                      
               ‘419 application collectively, we will refer to the “Cabilly applications”.                                            
                       34.     Glaxo makes substantially the same arguments in its preliminary motion 3 as it                         
               does in that portion of its preliminary motion 5 urging that Cabilly should not be accorded                            
               priority benefit of the ‘419 application for proposed Count 2.                                                         
                       35.     In particular, Glaxo argues that the ‘419 disclosure does not contain a written                        
               description of an embodiment of the invention falling within Count 1.  We note that Glaxo does                         
               not argue that the ‘419 disclosure lacked enablement for an embodiment within the scope of                             
               proposed Count 2 (Paper 51 at 17).5                                                                                    
                                                    Glycosylation by CHO cells                                                        
                       36.     Glaxo argues that neither of the Cabilly applications describes antibodies that are                    
               glycosylated by CHO cells (Paper 49 at 11-12 and Paper 51 at 21-25).                                                   



                       5       We also note the difference between Glaxo’s position in its preliminary motion 1                       
               (attacking the priority benefit accorded to Cabilly for it’s ‘457 application) and Glaxo’s position                    
               in its preliminary motion 5.  In its preliminary motion 1, Glaxo argues that the ‘457 disclosure                       
               lacks written description for an embodiment within the scope of Count 1 and that Cabilly’s ‘457                        
               disclosure “does [did] not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention of the                       
               Count or an embodiment of an invention falling within the Count without undue                                          
               experimentation” (Paper 47 at 4).  Our understanding is that the difference in Glaxo’s position is                     
               based upon a change in the level of skill in the art between the filing date of the ‘457 application                   
               and the filing date of the ‘419 application (see, e.g., Exh. 1120 at 75:18-76:3 and Paper 203 at                       
               16-17).                                                                                                                
                                                                -12-                                                                  





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007