Ex Parte Starling et al - Page 5


                Appeal No. 2005-2121                                                                                 Page 5                    
                Application No. 09/745,605                                                                                                     

                the alleged uses. . . .  Nothing about Fisher’s seven alleged uses set the five claimed                                        
                ESTs apart from the more than 32,000 ESTs disclosed in the ‘643 application or indeed                                          
                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.”  Id.                                       
                         The examiner notes that “the specification fails to disclose any particular function                                  
                or biological significance” for APEX-1.  Answer, page 4.  Appellants argue that APEX-1 “is                                     
                homologous to the CD2 subfamily, which is well-characterized as having utility with                                            
                respect to leukocyte proliferation, differentiation, migration and activation, and diseases                                    
                associated therewith” (Brief, pages 7-8), and “homology to a molecule with known utility is                                    
                acceptable for establishing Section 101 utility” (id., page 8).  Nevertheless, the examiner                                    
                argues that the specification does not disclose the degree of homology between APEX-1                                          
                and any particular member of the CD2 subfamily, and in any case, “[a]ssignment to this                                         
                family does not support an inference of utility because the members are not known to                                           
                share a common utility” (Answer, page 16).  That is, “no activit[ies] [are] known to be                                        
                common to all members of the CD2 subfamily[,]” and “there is no evidence that the . . .                                        
                APEX-1 polypeptide would share any one of those different activities” (id., page 15).  The                                     
                examiner concludes that “[t]he instant claims are drawn to a nucleic acid encoding a                                           
                polypeptide of as yet undetermined function or biological significance” (id., page 5),                                         
                without an “immediately apparent or ‘real world’ utility as of the filing date” (id.).                                         
                         With respect to appellants’ assertion that APEX-1 is useful “for diagnosing . . . a                                   
                disease associated with the presence or absence of the APEX protein” (Specification,                                           
                page 47), the examiner notes that “the specification does not disclose a nexus between                                         
                any specific disease states and a change in the amount or form of APEX genes” (Answer,                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007