Ex Parte Polonsky et al - Page 8


                     Appeal No.  2005-0258                                                                           Page 8                        
                     Application No.  09/768,877                                                                                                   
                              According to the examiner (Answer, page 8, emphasis removed),                                                        
                              [o]nly one human and one mouse gene have been disclosed as                                                           
                              encoding calpain 10 polypeptides and only two completely                                                             
                              functional calpain 10 polypeptides have been disclosed.  The                                                         
                              specification fails to provide the structures of all the calpain 10                                                  
                              polypeptides … [encompassed by] the claimed method, or the                                                           
                              structural elements which are common to all calpain 10 proteins                                                      
                              from any organism.  In addition, the specification fails to disclose …                                               
                              the critical structural elements in the human and mouse calpain 10                                                   
                              polypeptides disclosed which are required in any polypeptide to                                                      
                              display calpain 10 activity.                                                                                         
                              As we understand it, the method of claim 51 is open to the use of a                                                  
                     calpain 10 polypeptide of any structure from any source.  Therefore, the method                                               
                     of claim 51 reads generically on the use of any calpain 10 polypeptide from any                                               
                     source.  Thus, the specification must adequately describe the genus of calpain                                                
                     10 polypeptides encompassed by the method of claim 51.  As a matter of logic, a                                               
                     method of using a product cannot be adequately described without describing the                                               
                     product.  For the following reasons, we agree with the examiner that the                                                      
                     specification does not adequately describe this genus of calpain 10 polypeptides.                                             
                              “A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a                                            
                     description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by                                                 
                     structure, formula, [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to                                          
                     distinguish it from other materials.”  University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co.,                                         
                     119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997), provides the appropriate                                                      
                     analysis.  The claims in Lilly were directed generically to vertebrate or                                                     
                     mammalian insulin cDNAs.  See id. at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405.  The court held                                                 
                     that a structural description of a rat cDNA was not an adequate description of                                                
                     these broader classes of cDNAs, because a “written description of an invention                                                






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007