Appeal No. 2004-1259
Application No. 09/832,355
Upon review of the relevant portions of the specification indicated above with
respect to enablement, we find such portions also adequately describe the claimed
invention. In our view appellants have described the claimed subject matter in the
specification clearly enough that one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would
recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented the subject matter including
those limitations. In view of the above, this aspect of the written description rejection is
reversed.
4. Lack of Written Description and Enablement of fusion proteins described in
claim 12
The examiner argues there is no adequate “written description and enablement
to support the scope of fusion proteins that result in vessels that are associated with
more smooth muscle cells, a greater concentration of smooth muscle cells, more
endothelial cells, a greater concentration thereof, or a combination of such than would
be obtained using only the ‘VEGF’ portion of the protein.” Answer, page 11.
The examiner admits that “the only ...property to have been recognized to be
associated with HBNF is the proliferation of endothelial cells, and the specification
provides no guidance or working examples of HBNF with the other such properties.”
Answer, page 12. Thus, the examiner admits that the HBNF described in the
specification possesses at least one of the claimed properties, proliferation of
endothelial cells.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007