Ex Parte LINSLEY et al - Page 8




              Appeal No. 1999-2330                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/219,200                                                                                

                     An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are supported by an enabling                        
              disclosure requires a determination of whether that disclosure contained sufficient                       
              information regarding the subject matter of the appealed claims as to enable one skilled                  
              in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.                                               
                     In order to establish a prima facie case of lack of enablement, the examiner has                   
              the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided                    
              for the claimed invention.  See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d                           
              1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (examiner must provide a reasonable explanation as to                         
              why the scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by the                          
              disclosure).  See also In re Morehouse, 545 F2d 162, 192 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1976).                             
              The threshold step in resolving this issue is to determine whether the examiner has met                   
              his burden of proof by advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement.                       
                     In support of the rejection for lack of enablement, the examiner argues (Answer,                   
              pages 2-3):                                                                                               
                            In vitro and animal model studies have not correlated well with in                          
                     vivo clinical trials in patients.  Since the therapeutic indices of                                
                     immunosuppressive drugs such as adhesion-based biopharmaceutical                                   
                     drugs can be species- and model-dependent, it is not clear that reliance                           
                     on the experimental observations of inhibiting cognate T:B interaction s                           
                     [sic] with anti-CD28 antibodies and anti-B7 antibodies provides the basis                          
                     for employing CD28Ig and B7 Ig fusion proteins (CD28 immunoglobulin                                
                     fusion protein and B7 immunoglobulin fusion protein)...  It is noted that                          
                     B7Ig inhibited CD28-mediated adhesion in vitro to a lesser degree than                             
                     the CD28-specific antibody 9.3 and that CD28Ig did not inhibit said in vitro                       
                     adhesion (see page 64 of the instant specification).  In addition, B7Ig in                         
                     solution showed a modest enhancement of proliferation of T cells in vitro                          
                     even though anti-CD28 antibody 9.3 was effective (page 65 of the instant                           
                                                           8                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007