Ex Parte LEE - Page 13


                 Appeal No.  2004-1369                                                        Page 13                  
                 Application No.  08/966,233                                                                           
                        [t]he protein products lack patentable utility for the reasons set forth                       
                        below; therefore, the methods of producing the protein and vectors                             
                        and hosts used therefore to make these protein products must also                              
                        lack patentable utility.                                                                       
                               The specification and claims disclose using the nucleic acid                            
                        sequence encoding GDF-1 to produce GDF-1 proteins.                                             
                 According to the examiner (Answer, page 8),                                                           
                        [t]he specification speculates on possible activities of GDF-1.  None                          
                        of the particular activities disclosed for other TGF-β superfamily                             
                        members have been demonstrated for this protein in the                                         
                        specification and none were known at the time of the invention.                                
                        None of the uses set forth in the specification could be practiced at                          
                        the time of the invention without undue experimentation.  Providing                            
                        a laundry list of potential uses [as set forth in appellant’s                                  
                        specification], some of which are diametrically opposed to each                                
                        other, is not deemed to be enabling.                                                           
                 To emphasize the “laundry list” of potential uses set forth in appellant’s                            
                 specification the examiner reproduces portions of appellant’s disclosure found at                     
                 pages 1, 2, 12-15, and 20 into the answer.  See Answer, pages 9-14.  For                              
                 example, the portions of appellant’s specification reproduced by the examiner                         
                 identify several potential uses for GDF-1 including, inter alia, “as a specific                       
                 marker for the presence of tumors arising from cell types that normally express                       
                 GDF-1” (specification, page 12; Answer, page 11); “as an indicator for the                            
                 presence of developmental anomalies in prenatal screens for potential birth                           
                 defects” (id.); and “in prenatal screens for genetic diseases that either directly                    
                 correlate with the expression or function of GDF-1 or are closely linked to the                       
                 GDF-1 gene” (specification, page 13; Answer, page 12).  Nevertheless, despite                         
                 the assertion of “potential uses for GDF-1” appellant admits (specification, page                     
                 14; Answer, page 13), “[a] determination of the specific clinical settings in which                   
                 GDF-1 will be used as a diagnostic or as a therapeutic tool await further                             






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007