Ex Parte COLBURN et al - Page 4



              Appeal No.  2002-1631                                                                 Page 4                
              Application No. 08/213,433                                                                                  
              to a treatment regime that would lead to the inhibition of tumor promoter-induced AP-1                      
              transcription activity [sufficient] to provide a therapeutic effect to a mammal,”  Answer,                  
              page 2.                                                                                                     
                     The examiner concedes that working examples 1 through 7 of the specification                         
              demonstrate that “AP-1 induced transcription is inhibited when TAM67 DNA2 is                                
              expressed” in transfected cells, and that “transgenic mice which express TAM67 . . . do                     
              not form papillomas and carcinomas when treated topically with . . . tumor promoting                        
              compounds.”  Answer, page 5.  Thus, it does not appear that the examiner questions                          
              whether TAM67 DNA, expressed at sufficient levels, can inhibit tumor promotion and /or                      
              progression.  Nevertheless, in concluding that the present treatment claims are not                         
              enabled, the examiner argues that appellants have merely “provided a laundry list of c-                     
              jun deletion mutants . . . dosage amount[s] . . . route[s] of delivery . . . and delivery                   
              vehicles” (id., pages 7-8) with “no correlation [to] treatment of tumors or cancers where                   
              the tumors or cancers did not contain the TAM67 DNA sequence prior to tumor or                              
              cancer induction” (id., page 9, emphasis added).3                                                           
                     If we can summarize the basis of the examiner’s conclusion, it is that “gene                         
              therapy in general was regarded as unpredictable by the art at the time of filing,”                         
              especially “in the realm of expression and delivery of the gene” (Answer, page 4), and                      
              the guidance provided by the specification’s descriptions of treatment protocols and                        


                     2 TAM67 is a DNA construct encoding a particular c-jun deletion mutant.                              
                     3 Example 8 of the specification purports to show that the size of “papillomas and                   
              squamous carcinomas . . . decreases in mice treated with [ ] TAM67 nucleic acid                             
              sequence or corresponding protein/peptide” (page 33).  Nevertheless, there is no                            
              evidence that the experiment described in this example was ever actually performed,                         
              and the description of the protocol is so sketchy as to be meaningless.  Therefore, we                      
              are unable to accord it any weight.                                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007