Ex Parte Walke et al - Page 6


             Appeal No. 2006-2131                                                           Page 6               
             Application No. 10/309,422                                                                          

             of the filing date of this application.  See Brana, 51 F.3d at 1567 n.19, 34 USPQ2d at              
             1441 n.19 (utility determined as of application’s filing date).                                     
                   Thus, Appellants can rely on the cited GenBank records and post-filing references             
             for the limited purpose of showing the accuracy of the specification’s statement that SEQ           
             ID NOs 16 and 28 encode a protein that is “similar to those related to eucaryotic GPI-              
             anchored P137 proteins . . . , tumor-associated proteins, and precursors of secreted                
             proteins.”  Page 15.  The post-filing references cannot be relied on, however, for                  
             disclosures that do not reflect the state of the art as of this application’s filing date.  See     
             In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605, 194 USPQ 527, 537 (CCPA 1977) (“[U]se of later                      
             publications as evidence of the state of art existing on the filing date of an application” is      
             acceptable.).                                                                                       
                   The specification states that the disclosed sequences are “similar to those                   
             related to eucaryotic GPI-anchored P137 protein[ ] (which is thought to facilitate                  
             transport of materials across epithelial surfaces), tumor-associated proteins, and                  
             precursors of secreted proteins.”  Page 15.  Grill2 discloses that a cDNA that had been             
             “previously mischaracterized as encoding p137, a 137-kDa GPI-linked membrane                        
             protein,” was apparently involved in cellular activation or proliferation.  Grill proposed          
             renaming the protein as “cytoplasmic activation/proliferation associated protein-1                  
             (caprin-1).”                                                                                        
                   This post-filing evidence does not provide support for the statements in the                  
             specification.  It does not support the specification’s assertion that the protein encoded          
                                                                                                                 
             2 Grill et al., “Activation/division of lymphocytes results in increased levels of cytoplasmic      
             activation/proliferation-associated protein-1:  prototype of a new family of proteins,” J. Immunol., Vol. 172,
             pp. 2389-2400 (2004).  Only the abstract of Grill is of record (Exhibit C attached to the Appeal Brief), not
             the full-text paper, so we have considered only the abstract.                                       





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007