Ex Parte Bander - Page 4



             Appeal No. 2006-0352                                                           Παγε 4               
             Application No. 09/929,546                                                                          
                   67.  The method according to claim 58, wherein the antibody is selected from the              
             group consisting of a monoclonal antibody and a polyclonal antibody.                                
                   68.  The method according to claim 67, wherein the antibody is a monoclonal                   
             antibody selected from the group consisting of an E99, a J415, a J533, and a J591                   
             monoclonal antibody.                                                                                
                   Claim 72 is representative of the subject matter that is the subject of this appeal:          
                   72.  The method according to claim 58, wherein the antibody or antigen binding                
             portion thereof competes for binding to prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)                   
             with a monoclonal antibody selected from the group consisting of an E99, a J415, a                  
             J533, and a J591 monoclonal antibody.                                                               
                   Essentially, the examiner’s position is that “antibodies that ‘compete for binding’           
             to E99, J591, J415, and J533 . . . constitute a separate subgenus” that was not                     
             expressly “recite[d] or reasonably contemplate[d]” in the specification as originally filed         
             (Answer, page 4).  Further, the examiner asserts that the only relevant example in the              
             specification “reinforce[s] the idea that ‘non-competing’ antibodies are [ ] preferred” (id.,       
             page 8).                                                                                            
                   “The ‘written description’ requirement serves a teaching function, . . . in which the         
             public is given ‘meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing               
             the invention for a limited period of time.’”  University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.,        
             Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 922, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1891 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).                  
             Another “purpose of the ‘written description’ requirement is . . . [to] convey with                 
             reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date [ ], [the applicant]     
             was in possession of the invention.”  Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-               
             64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  See also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-                      
             Probe Inc., 296 F.3d 1316, 1329, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  The                        
             requirement is satisfied when the specification “set[s] forth enough detail to allow a              
             person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed and to recognize that the         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007