Ex Parte Cannon et al - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-1139                                                                             
                Application 10/052,664                                                                       
                (Id. at 2.)  Peerce and Feild thus establish that there was a known specific                 
                and substantial known utility for potassium sodium transporters that are                     
                involved in the absorption of Pi in the intestine.                                           
                      In addition, as noted by Appellants (Br. 9), the Specification teaches                 
                that the Npt2B polypeptide may be used in the generation of antibodies that                  
                reduce or inhibit the function of Npt2B, which antibodies may be useful as                   
                therapeutics.  Again, the Examiner has provided no evidence that one skilled                 
                in the art would not find such a utility credible.                                           
                      The Examiner’s primary concern appears to be that “[t]he claimed                       
                transporter was not expressed in intestinal cells or any other cells to                      
                determine its ion transport properties.  The functionality of claimed                        
                transporter is based solely on homology to other transporter polypeptides.”                  
                (Answer 20 (emphasis added).)  The Examiner’s concern, therefore, seems                      
                to be that the disclosure as filed predicated utility and function on sequence               
                homology.  The USPTO has, however, rejected a per se rule as to homology.                    
                            The suggestions to adopt a per se rule rejecting                                 
                      homology based assertions of utility are not adopted.  An                              
                      applicant is entitled to a patent to the subject matter claimed                        
                      unless statutory requirements are not met (35 U.S.C. 101, 102,                         
                      103, 112).  When the USPTO denies a patent, the Office must                            
                      set forth at least a prima facie case as to why an applicant has                       
                      not met the statutory requirements.  The inquiries involved in                         
                      assessing utility are fact dependent, and the determinations                           
                      must be made on the basis of scientific evidence.  Reliance on                         
                      the commenters’ per se rule, rather than a fact dependent                              
                      inquiry, is impermissible because the commenters provide no                            
                      scientific evidence that homology-based assertions of utility are                      
                      inherently unbelievable or involve implausible scientific                              
                      principles.  See, e.g., In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566, 34                            
                      USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (rejection of claims                                
                      improper where claims did ‘‘not suggest an inherently                                  

                                                     11                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013