Ex Parte Walke et al - Page 7


             Appeal No. 2006-2131                                                           Page 7               
             Application No. 10/309,422                                                                          

             by the claimed nucleic acids is similar to “eucaryotic GPI-anchored P137 proteins,”                 
             because Grill does not provide any comparison of caprin-1 with the proteins disclosed in            
             this application.  Nor does Grill provide evidence that the proteins encoded by the                 
             claimed nucleic acids would have been recognized as “tumor-associated proteins” as of               
             the filing date, because there is no evidence of record that the protein renamed caprin-1           
             by Grill was recognized as tumor-associated as of this application’s filing date.                   
                   Grill’s post-filing disclosure that caprin-1 is apparently involved in cellular               
             activation or proliferation does not support the utility of the instantly claimed nucleic           
             acids, because the instant application does not disclose that the claimed nucleic acids             
             encode caprin-1, and there is no evidence of record that shows that p137 was known to               
             those skilled in the art  to be involved in cellular proliferation as of this application’s filing  
             date.  The evidence of record does not reveal any specific and substantial utility for              
             proteins similar to “eucaryotic GPI-anchored P137 proteins,” disclosed in either the                
             specification or prior art.                                                                         
                   In addition, the specification’s disclosure that the encoded proteins are “similar to         
             . . . tumor-associated proteins, and precursors of secreted proteins” would not allow those         
             skilled in the art to use them in a specific and substantial way.  Appellants argue that the        
             specification teaches that “diseases associated with the presently claimed sequences                
             include ‘cancer’ (the specification at page 16, line 21).”  Appeal Brief, page 12.                  
                   We disagree.  The relevant sentence reads as follows:  “[T]he described NHPs                  
             can be targeted . . . in order to treat disease, or to therapeutically augment the efficacy         
             of, for example, therapeutic agents used in the treatment of . . . cancer.”  Thus, the cited        
             passage does not say that the proteins encoded by the claimed nucleic acids are useful              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007