Ex Parte Callens et al - Page 3


             Appeal No. 2005-2381                                                              Page 3               
             Application No. 09/944,209                                                                             

             preferentially an essential amino acid.’ In further limiting ‘amino acids,’ this passage               
             does not support the limitation of all α-amino acids. The description supports only the                
             further limitation of ‘essential amino acids.’”  Examiner’s Answer, page 3.  Appellants                
             argue that the quoted passage from the specification supports the disputed limitation, as              
             do (among other parts) Examples 1 and 2.  Appeal Brief, page 4.                                        
                    The examiner                                                                                    
                    “bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a prima facie case of                             
                    unpatentability.”  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,                          
                    1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Insofar as the written description requirement is                        
                    concerned, that burden is discharged by “presenting evidence or reasons                         
                    why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a                          
                    description of the invention defined by the claims.” . . .  If . . . the                        
                    specification contains a description of the claimed invention, albeit not in                    
                    ipsis verbis (in the identical words), then the examiner . . ., in order to                     
                    meet the burden of proof, must provide reasons why one of ordinary skill                        
                    in the art would not consider the description sufficient.                                       
             In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).                                
                    “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally          
             filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at                 
             issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481,                     
             1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity                 
             to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention.  See id.             
                    In this case, the examiner has found that the specification adequately describes                
             the genus of compounds where R3-NαH- is an amino acid. Examiner’s Answer, page 4                       
             (“The examiner agrees that the genus of amino acids, per se, is disclosed.”).  The                     
             examiner has also found that the specification adequately describes the smaller genus                  
             of compounds where R3-NαH- is an essential amino acid. Examiner’s Answer, page 3.                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007