Ex Parte PEOPLES et al - Page 8


              Appeal No. 2005-1383                                                                                       
              Application No. 09/364,847                                                                                 

              directed to an invention which is broader than that which is described in the                              
              specification.  This analysis is improper.  We remind the examiner that written                            
              description is determined from the perspective of what the specification conveys to one                    
              skilled in the art.  In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed.                       
              Cir. 1995); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64.  Thus, the specification                       
              need not always spell out every detail; only enough “to convince a person of skill in the                  
              art that the inventor possessed the invention and to enable such a person to make and                      
              use the invention without undue experimentation.”  LizardTech Inc., v. Earth Resource                      
              Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1344-45, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005).                              
                     The present invention is not about novel enzymes; it is about making fusion                         
              proteins (or protein fusions) which comprise known enzymes.  In this regard, we direct                     
              attention to the examiner’s acquiescence to the appellants’ argument that the proteins,                    
              and genes which encode them, are known and publicly available.  Answer, pp. 2-3;                           
              Brief, pp. 6-7.  We point out that the examiner appears to have agreed with the                            
              appellants that pages 8-10 of the specification, pages 4-8 of the appellants’ response                     
              mailed December 27, 2002 (entered January 2, 2003), and the Medline database1                              
              demonstrate that given the homology between both the amino acid and nucleotide                             
              sequences of the enzymes in each of the claimed classes, one skilled in the art could                      
              readily obtain the enzymes from various species.  Answer, p. 3; Brief, p. 7.  That is, in                  

                                                                                                                         
              1 It is not clear to us on what “Medline database” the appellants are relying.  We find no                 
              exhibits in the file which support this argument.  Accordingly, at least with respect to the               
              “Medline database,” we find that the appellants are relying only on argument of counsel.                   
              We point out that argument of counsel cannot take the place of objective evidence.  In                     
              re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re Lindner, 457                             
              F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1971).  Thus, we accord the argument in                             
              this regard little, or no, evidentiary weight.                                                             

                                                           8                                                             

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007