Ex Parte PAGE - Page 23




                       The fact that the subgenus of proposed Count 2 is encompassed by the genus of ‘611                             
               claim 56, does not, by itself, necessarily establish a prima facie case that proposed Count 2 is                       
               obvious in view of claim 56.  In re Baird , 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir.                          
               1994) .  Thus, we determine that Glaxo has made a prima facie showing that claim 56                                    
               encompasses an invention that is separately patentable from the particular sub-genus or species                        
               invention encompassed by proposed Count 2.                                                                             
                       Cabilly opposes the substitution of  proposed Count 2.  Cabilly argues that:  (1) Glaxo                        
               has not provided evidence that treatment of human subjects is separately patentable from the                           
               treatment of other subjects, and (2) “an antibody expressed by CHO mammalian cells according                           
               to the teachings of Cabilly would be inherently glycosylated”.                                                         
                       Glaxo has shown that it is appropriate to substitute proposed Count 2 because ‘611 claim                       
               56 does not expressly require that the antibodies used for treatment be glycosylated.                                  
                       When we give claim 56 its broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that the                            
               antibodies of claim 56 may be glycosylated or non-glycosylated.  For example, Dr. Youle                                
               testified that under certain circumstances antibodies expressed by CHO cells may not be                                
               glycosylated (FF 51c).   While we make no determination as to whether the ‘611 application                             
               describes antibodies expressed in CHO cells that are not glycosylated, Glaxo has shown that                            
               claim 56 encompasses non-glycosylated antibodies.12                                                                    


                       12      Even if the ‘611 application does not describe non-glycosylated antibodies                             
               expressed in CHO cells, we do not find it appropriate to interpret claim 56 as requiring                               
               glycosylation.  In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1186, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993);                           
               Enercon GmbH v. ITC, 151 F.3d 1376, 1384, 47 USPQ2d 1725, 1731 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[W]hile                              
               claims are to be construed in light of the specification, they are not necessarily limited to the                      
               specification.")                                                                                                       

                                                                -23-                                                                  





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007