Ex Parte WAGNER et al - Page 5


                 Appeal No.  2003-1126                                                       Page 5                   
                 Application No.  08/444,285                                                                          

                        reasonably provide enablement for the breadth of the claims to                                
                        transgenic rodents, rabbits, goats, pigs, cattle or sheep expressing                          
                        any genetic material of interest under obtainable conditions, and                             
                        methods of producing a polypeptide of interest in the above listed                            
                        transgenic mammals. . . .  The specification does not enable any                              
                        person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most                      
                        nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in                               
                        scope with these claims.                                                                      
                 Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4.                                                                        
                        The rejection addresses the relevant Wands factors.  See In re Wands,                         
                 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1403 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  Factors that should                        
                 be considered in determining whether a specification is enabling, or if it would                     
                 require an undue amount of experimentation to practice the invention include: (1)                    
                 the quantity of experimentation necessary to practice the invention, (2) the                         
                 amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of                            
                 working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6)               
                 the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the            
                 art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.  See id.                                                     
                        With respect to the nature of the invention, the examiner comments that                       
                 the claimed invention is drawn                                                                       
                        to a transgenic nonhuman mammal whose genome contains at                                      
                        least one heterologous gene and a transcriptional control sequence                            
                        operatively associated where the mammal expresses the gene at a                               
                        detectable level in a plurality of the mammal’s cells, and the                                
                        methods of producing a polypeptide or protein in the transgenic                               
                        mammal or progeny of the transgenic mammal.  The mammal can                                   
                        be anyone of a rodent, rabbit, goat, pig, cattle and sheep.  The                              
                        protein can be any polypeptide or protein.                                                    
                 Examiner’s Answer, page 4.  According to the rejection, “[a] compelling feature of                   
                 a transgenic mammal is that the heterologous genetic material is present in all, or                  





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007