Opinion ID: 787295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 In the 1980s, Appellants apparently discovered two specific proteins isolated from human urine that, among other things, selectively inhibit the cytotoxic effect of tumor necrosis factor (TNF). They named the compounds TNF binding proteins I & II (TBP-I and TBP-II). After obtaining a partial amino acid sequence of the N-terminal portion of TBP-II and determining that the complete protein has a molecular weight of about 30 kilodaltons (kDa) when measured by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) under reducing conditions, Appellants filed a patent application including, inter alia, claims directed to proteins having that molecular weight and partial sequence ( i.e., threonin e-proline-tyrosine-alanine-proline-glutamic acid-proline-glycine-serine-threonine, or Thr-Pro-Tyr-Ala-Pro-Glu-Pro-Gly-Ser-Thr) and having the ability to inhibit the cytotoxic effect of TNF. Appellants' application also included claims to isolated DNA molecules that encode the claimed proteins. The PTO issued a restriction requirement and Appellants filed divisional applications. The claims directed to the proteins having the stated partial sequence are currently involved in an interference proceeding and are not at issue here. The claims at issue, those directed to the DNA, were rejected under § 112 as based on a specification which does not provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. Wallach, slip op. at 2. After several unsuccessful attempts to traverse that rejection, Appellants appealed to the Board. 3 Citing this court's decisions in Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed.Cir.1991), Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164 (Fed.Cir.1993), and Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed.Cir.1997), the Board affirmed the examiner's rejection. In particular, the Board held that (1) applicants do not describe the genetic material sought to be patented in claim 11 with sufficient specificity in their specification; and (2) the examiner did not err in finding that claim 11 is based on a specification which does not provide adequate, written descriptive support for the claimed subject matter. Wallach, slip op. at 8-9. 1 4 Appellants now appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).