Ex Parte BANDMAN et al - Page 5



            Appeal No. 2003-1805                                                          Page 5              
            Application No. 09/079,892                                                                        

            that “[a] written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description      
            of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or]        
            chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other             
            materials” Id. at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405.  The court also stated that                            
                   a generic statement such as ‘vertebrate insulin cDNA’ or ‘mammalian                        
                   insulin cDNA,’ without more, is not an adequate written description of the                 
                   genus because it does not distinguish the genus from others, except by                     
                   function. It does not specifically define any of the genes that fall within its            
                   definition.  It does not define any structural features commonly possessed                 
                   by members of the genus that distinguish them from others.  One skilled                    
                   in the art therefore cannot, as one can do with a fully described genus,                   
                   visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus.  A                        
                   definition by function, as we have previously indicated, does not suffice to               
                   define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does,                   
                   rather than what it is.                                                                    
            Id. at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.  The court concluded that “naming a type of material              
            generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists           
            of, is not a description of that material.”  Id.                                                  
                   Finally, the court addressed the manner by which a genus of cDNAs might be                 
            described.  “A description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a                      
            recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling           
            within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the             
            members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.”  Id.         
                   In reviewing this rejection, we note that the examiner has not rejected claim 8            
            under this section of the statute.  Claim 8 reads:                                                
                   8.  An isolated and purified polynucleotide comprising a naturally occurring               
            polynucleotide sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to the polynucleotide of            
            SEQ ID NO:4, wherein said naturally occurring polynucleotide sequence encodes a                   
            polypeptide having glutamine-fructose-6-phosphate amidotransferase activity.                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007