Ex Parte BORNSCHEUER et al - Page 10




              Appeal No. 2005-1745                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/161,680                                                                               


              “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not                      
              overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field as far as described in the               
              patent specification.”  Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d at 1342, 54 USPQ2d at 1915.                 
              As discussed above, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must                   
              also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date              
              sought, he or she was in possession of the invention” [first emphasis added].  Vas-Cath                  
              Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117.  “One shows that one is ‘in                    
              possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations...”           
              [emphases in original]).  Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1563, 1572, 41                         
              USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                                                      
                     Here, we point out that the claims, as originally filed, were directed to a “method               
              for altering the substrate specificity of enzymes.”  In addition, the specification, as                  
              originally filed, disclosed, inter alia:                                                                 
                     Alteration of the substrate specificity in the novel method means that the enzymes                
                     having been subjected to the method are able to convert substrates which they                     
                     were previously unable to convert, because the affinity of the enzyme for the                     
                     substrate was too low (= high KM) and/or the catalytic activity (= kcat) of the                   
                     enzymes was too low.  In these cases, the ratio of kcat/ KM is zero or almost zero,               
                     i.e.[,] catalysis does not occur.  The alteration in the substrate specificity reduces            
                     the  KM or increases the  kcat, or both, ie.[,] the ratio of kcat/ KM becomes greater             
                     than zero.  A catalytic reaction occurs.  The enzyme converts the new substrate                   
                     after the mutagenesis.  [Specification, p. 3, line 42- p. 4, line 5].                             
                     The examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as                      
              being indefinite, inter alia, in the recitation of “substrate specificity.”  According to the            

                                                          10                                                           





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007