Ex Parte Anderson et al - Page 5


                 Appeal No.  2006-0102                                                           Page 5                   
                 Application No.  09/732,439                                                                              
                 encompassed by claim 59.  In this regard, we direct appellants’ attention to the                         
                 second part of Capon, specifically discussing the relationship between the scope                         
                 of the claim and the written description requirement.  Capon, 418 F.3d at 1358-                          
                 1361, 76 USPQ2d at 1085-1087.                                                                            
                         As discussed at page 9 of the Decision, “the evidence of record                                  
                 establishes that as of appellants’ filing date three distinct pathways were known                        
                 to exist for the production of proline.”  Notwithstanding the “three separate                            
                 pathways for the biosynthesis of proline, which appear to utilize a number of                            
                 different enzymes, appellants would assert that the knowledge in the art of P5CS                         
                 and P5CR is representative of the entire genus of enzymes involved in proline                            
                 biosynthesis.”  Id.  We disagree.  In this regard, we note that “[a]ppellants fail to                    
                 direct our attention to any evidence of record . . . that teaches the enzymes                            
                 involved in the third pathway for proline biosynthesis, which involves the                               
                 intermediate ornithine.”  Id.                                                                            
                         For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the Decision, we                        
                 disagree with appellants’ assertion that “the facts and holding of Lilly are                             
                 inapposite to the present case, as vividly demonstrated in Capon.”  Request,                             
                 bridging sentence, pages 3-4.  As set forth in Capon                                                     
                         [i]t is well recognized that in the “unpredictable” fields of science, it                        
                         is appropriate to recognize the variability in the science in                                    
                         determining the scope of the coverage to which the inventor is                                   
                         entitled.   Such a decision usually focuses on the exemplification in                            
                         the specification.  See, e.g., Enzo Biochem, 296 F.3d at 1327-28                                 
                         (remanding for district court to determine “[w]hether the disclosure                             
                         provided by the three deposits in this case, coupled with the skill of                           
                         the art, describes the genera of claims 1-3 and 5”); Lilly, 119 F.3d                             
                         at 1569 (genus not described where “a representative number of                                   
                         cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of                               





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

Last modified: September 9, 2013