Ex Parte D et al - Page 5


             Appeal No. 2005-2739                                                          Page 5              
             Application No. 09/966,893                                                                        

             specification satisfies the requirement is a question of fact, which must be resolved on a        
             case-by case basis (Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d at 1116), and it is the              
             examiner’s “initial burden [to] present[ ] evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the         
             art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the           
             claims” (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976)).                         
                   “Applicants have some flexibility in the ‘mode selected for compliance’ with the            
             written description requirement” (University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 928, 69 USPQ2d             
             at 1896), and it is well settled that actual reduction to practice is not necessary to satisfy    
             the requirement (id. at 926, 69 USPQ2d at 1894).  Finally, the court has made it clear            
             that other factors, including the level of skill in the art, are relevant to whether a            
             description satisfies § 112.  See Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1358-59, 76 USPQ2d              
             1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic            
             claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing         
             knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of       
             the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other                   
             considerations appropriate to the subject matter.”).                                              
                   Appellants point out that the claims “encompass only those proteins useful for              
             treating lysosomal storage disorders [ ] other than Fabry disease” and “[a]                       
             comprehensive list of such proteins is provided in Table 1 of the specification” (Appeal          
             Brief, page 7), together with “references to scientific literature and/or Genbank accession       
             numbers disclosing the structure (amino acid sequence) of these proteins” (id., page 5).          
             Appellants argue that “[t]his structural information can be used to create nucleic acid           
             vectors for the expression of these proteins in any desired cell type, including insect           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007