Ex Parte Sun et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2003-1993                                                                                            
              Application No. 09/470,526                                                                                      
              coding sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1; and  a polynucleotide complementary to a                              
              polynucleotide described above.                                                                                 
                      According to the prior art, Aligue, Wee1 tyrosine kinase regulates mitosis by                           
              carrying out the inhibitory tyrosine 15 phosphorylation of Cdc2 M-phase inducing                                
              kinase.  Abstract.  The specification confirms this, stating “induced wee1                                      
              overexpression results in phosphorylation of p34 at tyrosine-15 (inactivating p34),                             
              effectively blocking the transition from G2 into mitosis.”  Specification, page 37.   The                       
              “encoded [wee1] protein is an important part of the checkpoint control machinery that                           
              regulates p34cdc2  activity and it's [sic] participation in the active MPF (maturation                          
              promoting factor) complex.”  Specification, page 36.  Wee1 activity can be stimulated by                        
              the CDK2-cyclin A complex, or inhibited by nim1.   Specification, page 36.                                      


              Description                                                                                                     
                      Claims 2-11, 31, 33 and 35-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                               
              paragraph as containing subject matter that was not described in the specification in                           
              such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art at the time the application                        
              was filed that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.                                            
                      The Federal Circuit has discussed the application of the written description                            
              requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 to inventions in the field of biotechnology.                        
              See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398,                         
              1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The court explained that                                                                

                                                              4                                                               





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007