Appeal No. 2005-0258 Page 16
Application No. 09/768,877
describe the genus by describing a “representative number” of calpain 10
polypeptides, wherein the representative species are described according to the
standard of either Lilly or Enzo. Since the specification does not adequately
describe the calpain 10 polypeptides required to practice the method of claim 51,
it does not adequately describe the claimed method.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 51 under the
written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. As discussed
supra claims 18-21, 49, 50, 53-64, 115 and 116 fall together with claim 51.
Enablement:
Claims 18-21, 49-51, 53-64, 115 and 116 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable
the scope of the claimed invention. Having disposed of all claims on appeal as
unpatentable over the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, we do not reach the merits of the rejection under the enablement
provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007