Ex Parte Massaro et al - Page 9

             Appeal 2007-0852                                                                                          
             Application 09/919,195                                                                                    
                    “[E]nablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make                       
             and use the invention without ‘undue experimentation.’  In re Wands, 858 F.2d                             
             731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  That some experimentation may                            
             be required is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation                              
             required is ‘undue.’” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed.                          
             Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).  “The key word is ‘undue,’ not                                         
             ‘experimentation.’”  In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219                                 
             (CCPA 1976).                                                                                              
                    Given the Specification does not describe any compound known to have the                           
             claimed RARβ antagonist activity, it also fails to enable the claimed method for                          
             the treatment or prevention of alveolar destruction in a mammal comprising the                            
             step of administering a therapeutically effective amount of an RARβ antagonist                            
             having specific RAR modulating activity to said mammal, and such antagonist is                            
             not specific to at least one other RAR receptor subtype.                                                  
                    While we acknowledge that the Specification provides evidence that RAR                             
             antagonists were known in the prior art, we find no evidence of RAR antagonists                           
             that meet the claimed requirement of being “not specific to at least one other RAR                        
             receptor subtype.”  Thus, even if methods of determining which compounds meet                             
             this limitation were known in the art, absent even a single working example, it is                        
             our opinion that it would require undue experimentation to carry out the full scope                       
             of the claim. The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is                       
             inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the                       
             predictability in the art.  In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA                        
             1970).  In this case, because no evidence has been presented that RAR antagonists                         
             with the claimed characteristics have been identified or even exist, it is clearly                        
             unpredictable that compounds within the scope of claim 13 could be found.                                 


                                                         - 9 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013