Ex Parte Drucker et al - Page 5


                Appeal No. 2004-2356                                                   Page 5                  
                Application No. 09/833,740                                                                     

                Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (citing Guidelines for                        
                Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 “Written                     
                Description” Requirement, 66 Fed. Reg. 1099, 1106 (January 5, 2001)).                          
                      The court also addressed the issue of what constitutes an adequate                       
                written description of a claim to a broad genus of sequences.  In The Regents of               
                The University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398               
                (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court determined that the disclosure of rat cDNA did not                 
                provide adequate written description support for claims drawn to mammalian and                 
                vertebrate DNA.  Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567-68, 43 USPQ2d at 1405.  The court                 
                stated:                                                                                        
                      In claims to genetic material, however, 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 claimed 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.                                                                              
                Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.                                                
                      In Enzo-Biochem, the court refined the approach advanced by Eli Lilly,                   
                adopting an example offered in the USPTO guidelines having facts that                          
                contrasted with those of Eli Lilly, wherein the written description requirement                
                would be met.  Thus, an adequate written description may be present for a genus                
                of nucleic acids based on their hybridization properties, “if they hybridize under             





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007