Appeal No. 2003-1993
Application No. 09/470,526
polynucleotide having at least 80% identity to the entire coding region of SEQ ID NO:1.
The examiner argues that “Applicant's [sic] own specification fails to teach a
single representative species with 80% identity and WEE1 function.” Answer, page 5.
We do not agree with the examiner that claim 31 lacks written description in the
specification and that appellants were not in possession of the claimed invention at the
time the application was filed. First, to satisfy the written description requirement it is
not necessary that the application describe the claim limitations exactly, but only so
clearly that one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would recognize from the
disclosure that appellants invented the claimed subject matter. Thus, we do not find
the fact that the specification does not specifically teach the structure of a species with
80% identity and WEE1 function to be dispositive of the written description issue here.
The Enzo court stated that “the written description requirement can be met by
‘show[ing] that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant
identifying characteristics . . . i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or
chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed
correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such
characteristics.’” Id. at 1324, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (emphasis omitted, bracketed
material in original).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007