Ex Parte BornsDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 29, 201010702400 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte MICHAEL BORNS __________ Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 Technology Center 1600 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a mixture of DNA polymerases. The Examiner has rejected the claims for lack of 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 2 adequate description, nonenablement, and obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 22, 27, 31, 33, and 40-442 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent claim and reads as follows: 1. A blend of two or more DNA polymerases, comprising at least one fusion polypeptide DNA polymerase and at least one non-fusion polypeptide DNA polymerase, wherein said fusion polypeptide DNA polymerase has a proofreading activity and consists of a first polypeptide covalently linked to a second polypeptide, wherein said first polypeptide is a DNA polymerase selected from archaeal DNA polymerases and eubacterial DNA polymerases, and the second polypeptide is a DNA binding polypeptide, wherein the first and second polypeptides are not fused to each other in nature; and wherein said non-fusion polypeptide is a DNA polymerase selected from archaeal DNA polymerases and eubacterial DNA polymerases, said non-fusion polypeptide having a proofreading activity. The claims stand rejected as follows:3 • Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 22, 27, 31, 33, and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description (Answer 4); 2 Claims 56-65 are also pending, but stand withdrawn from consideration. (App. Br. 6.) 3 The Examiner has also provisionally rejected the claims for obviousness- type double patenting (Answer 13-15). Appellant has not argued the merits of the double-patenting rejections but requests that the provisional rejections be held in abeyance until one of the conflicting applications is otherwise in condition for allowance (Appeal Br. 24-25). Because we reverse the other rejections on appeal, it would be premature to address the merits of the provisional double-patenting rejections. See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010). Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 3 • Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 22, 27, 31, 33, and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement (Answer 5); and • Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 27, and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Barnes4 and Komori5 (Answer 10). I. The Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal for lack of adequate written description in the Specification, on the basis that the “specification states at page 8, line 26, under ‘Definitions’ that the ‘blend’ of the invention has a greater than 10% increase in proofreading activity . . . as compared to the non-chimeric (non-fusion) component of the blend” (Answer 4) but [t]here is no disclosure of any particular structure to function/activity relationship in the specification or knowledge in the art that would put one in possession of the genus of blends of variant DNA polymerases having a proofreading activity, wherein the blend has a greater than 10% increase in proofreading activity relative to the non-chimeric (non-fusion) polymerase. (Id. at 5.) Similarly, the Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal for lack of enablement, on the basis that the Specification “does not reasonably provide enablement for any blend of two or more DNA polymerases comprising at least one fusion polypeptide DNA polymerase . . . wherein 4 Barnes US 5,436,149, Jul. 25, 1995 5 Kayoko Komori et al., Functional interdependence of DNA polymerizing 3’→5’ exonucleolytic activities in Pyrococcus furiosus DNA polymerase I, 13 PROTEIN ENGINEERING NO. 1, 41-47 (200). Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 4 said blend has a greater than 10% increase in proofreading activity as compared to the non-chimeric component of the blend” (id. at 5-6). We will reverse both of these rejections. None of the claims on appeal is directed to a blend of DNA polymerases that have a greater than 10% increase in proofreading activity as compared to the non-chimeric DNA polymerase in the blend. The Specification states that “[a]s used herein, a ‘blend’ refers to a combination of two or more DNA polymerases comprising at least one chimeric DNA polymerase and at least one non- chimeric DNA polymerase” (Spec. 8: 17-19). The Specification also states: A “blend” of the invention has a >10% increase in one or more of the following activities . . . as compared to the non-chimeric component of the blend for a genomic and / or plasmid template.: processivity, efficiency, template length amplifi- cation capability, GC-rich target amplification efficiency, specificity, thermostability, intrinsic hot start capability, proof- reading activity, fidelity, DNA binding activity, strand displace- ment activity, nucleotide binding and recognition, and salt resistance. (Id. at 8: 26 to 9: 3.) The Examiner has not adequately explained why the Specification’s definition of “blend” requires reading the term to mean a mixture that has a greater than 10% increase in proofreading activity relative to the non- chimeric polymerase in the mixture. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 5 The rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 22, 27, 31, 33, and 40-44 for lack of adequate written description and lack of enablement are reversed. II. The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 27, and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Barnes and Komori (Answer 10). The Examiner finds that Barnes teaches a mixture of DNA polymerases (id.) and Komori teaches mutant DNA polymerases from Pyrococcus furiosus (id. at 11). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to use either of the Pfu DNA polymerase mutants . . . taught by Komori et al. in the formulation taught by Barnes et al.” (id.). The Examiner interprets Komori’s mutant DNA polymerase to meet the claim limitation requiring one of the polymerases in the claimed mix to be a “fusion polypeptide” (claim 1), because “a ‘fusion polypeptide’ is any polypeptide that comprises ‘fused’ polypeptides . . . [and the] polymerase mutants taught by Komori et al. comprise multiple polypeptide domains (i.e. Polymerase, DNA binding and exonuclease domains) ‘fused’ together” (Answer 31). The Examiner interprets Komori’s mutant DNA polymerase to meet the claim limitation requiring the fusion polypeptide to consist of “first and second polypeptides [that] are not fused to each other in nature” (claim 1), because “the mutant polymerase taught by Komori . . . is a polymerase comprising sequences that do not exist in nature” (Answer 33). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad, because the “terms ‘fusion polypeptide’ or ‘fusion protein’ are terms of art and would be understood by one of skill in the art to mean a protein created by joining two or more genes that code for separate proteins or the Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 6 domains of separate proteins” (Appeal Br. 22). Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification because those of skill in the art use the terms “chimera” and “fusion polypeptide” interchangeably, and the Specification defines a chimera as “two or more amino acid sequences . . . from unrelated proteins, joined to form a new functional protein” (id. at 23, quoting Specification 15: 16-19). We agree with Appellant that a “fusion polypeptide . . . [that] consists of . . . a DNA polymerase . . . [and] a DNA binding polypeptide” (claim 1) cannot reasonably be interpreted to encompass a DNA polymerase that is not fused to another polypeptide. The Specification defines a chimera is “a fusion of a first amino acid sequence (protein) comprising a wild type or mutant DNA polymerase of the invention, joined to a second amino acid sequence defining a polypeptide the modulates one or more activities of the DNA polymerase” (Spec. 15: 9-12, emphases added). This passage supports Appellant’s position that “chimera” and “fusion protein” or “fusion polypeptide” are used interchangeably. The Specification also states that a “‘chimera’ according to the invention contains two or more amino acid sequences . . . from unrelated proteins, joined to form a new functional protein” (Spec. 15: 16-19). Thus, when the claim term “fusion polypeptide” is read in light of the Specification, it cannot reasonably be interpreted to read on a protein, like a DNA polymerase, that naturally has different functional domains. The claim language requires a polypeptide in which sequences that are normally found in different proteins have been fused into a single polypeptide. The Examiner has pointed to no protein in either Barnes or Komori that meets Appeal 2010-005232 Application 10/702,400 7 this criterion, and therefore has not shown that the claimed composition would have been obvious based on those references. SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 22, 27, 31, 33, and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description and lack of enablement. We also reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 27, and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED lp AGILENT TECHOLOGIES INC, IN CARE OF CPA GLOBAL P. O. BOX 52050 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation