Ex Parte Au-Young et al - Page 4



              Appeal No. 2003-1817                                                                  Page 4                 
              Application No. 09/501,714                                                                                   

                     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.                    
                     Claim 45 b) defines a genus of polynucleotides by way of two significant                              
              qualifiers.  First, the polynucleotide of claim 45 b) must be “naturally occurring.”                         
              Second, the polynucleotide of claim 45 b) must be “at least 90% identical to the                             
              polynucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 or SEQ ID NO:3.”1  As explained in Lilly, a                           
              genus of polynucleotides can be described by a representative number of                                      
              polynucleotides sharing common structural features which constitute a substantial                            
              portion of the genus.  The examiner is correct in her analysis that claims 45 b) and                         


                     1   Claim 52 is similar to claim 45 but is directed to the polynucleotides of SEQ ID                  
              NO:2 or SEQ ID NO:4.                                                                                         




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007