Ex Parte Lal et al - Page 8


              Appeal No. 2005-0102                                                                 Page 8                
              Application No. 09/840,787                                                                                 

              from any EST derived from any organism.  Accordingly, we conclude that Fisher has only                     
              disclosed general uses for its claimed ESTs, not specific ones that satisfy § 101”).                       
                     As Appellants themselves have asserted, any expressed human gene could be                           
              used to carry out expression profiling.  Therefore, that potential use is not specific to the              
              claimed polynucleotides and does not meet the requirements of § 101.                                       
                     In view of the disclosure of the instant case, that potential use is also not                       
              substantial.  As the examiner has pointed out, the specification provides no guidance on                   
              the meaning of a change in HRM-19 expression.  A substantial utility is one that makes                     
              the invention useful to the public in its current form, not potentially useful in the future               
              after further research.  See Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371, 76 USPQ2d at 1230.  Since the                       
              specification does not provide a disclosure that would allow those skilled in the art to use               
              the information that results from an expression profiling experiment in any practical way,                 
              expression profiling of HRM-19 is not a substantial utility that would satisfy § 101.                      
                     Appellants also assert that HRM-19 is useful because it is likely to be a                           
              mitochondrial carrier protein.  See the Appeal Brief, page 15:  “[T]he polypeptide encoded                 
              for by the claimed polynucleotide shares more than 35% amino acid sequence identity                        
              over 351 amino acid residues with C. elegans C16C10 (g577542) . . . , a putative                           
              mitochondrial carrier protein. . . . This is more than enough homology to demonstrate a                    
              reasonable probability that the utility of the mitochondrial carrier protein family can be                 
              imputed to the claimed invention (through the polypeptide it encodes).”                                    
                     We do not find this argument persuasive, because nowhere in the specification or                    
              the Appeal Brief do Appellants explain what “utility” is possessed by members of “the                      
              mitochondrial carrier protein family” and thereby imputed to HRM-19.  Appellants assert                    





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007