In re Wright

In re Wright

Opinion

 [***1510]   [*1558]  RICH, Circuit Judge. 

Dr. Stephen E. Wright appeals from the January 16, 1992 decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) sustaining the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23, 15-42, and 45-48 of application Serial No. 06/914,620 ¹ [**2]  under 35  [*1559]  U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as unsupported by an enabling disclosure. ² We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Invention 

The claims on appeal are directed to processes for producing live, non-pathogenic [***1511]  vaccines against pathogenic RNA viruses (claims 1-10, 22-37, 40, 45, and 46), vaccines produced by these processes (claims 11, 12, 15-21, 38, and 39), and methods of using certain of these claimed vaccines to protect living organisms against RNA viruses (claims 41 and 42). Wright's specification provides a general description of these processes, vaccines, and methods of use, but only a single working example.

In this example, Wright describes the production of a recombinant vaccine which confers immunity in chickens against the RNA tumor virus known as Prague Avian Sarcoma Virus (PrASV), a member of the Rous Associated Virus (RAV) family. To produce this vaccine, Wright first identified the antigenic gene region of the genome of PrASV as being in the envelope A (env A) gene region of this virus, and then isolated and cloned a large quantity of this antigenic [**3]  gene region. Following cloning, Wright introduced by transfection the cloned env A genes into C/O cells, a particular chicken embryo cell line. The C/O cells were then infected with the endogenous, non-oncogenic, O-type Rous Associated Virus (RAV-O) and incubated. Genetic recombination and viral replication occurred during incubation, resulting in an impure vaccine containing particles of the recombinant virus referred to as RAV-O Ac<n>, or RAV-O-A. ³ Wright then purified this vaccine to obtain a vaccine containing only genetic recombinant RAV-Ac<n> virus particles. The Examiner ultimately allowed claims 13, 14, 43, and 44, which are specific to the particular process and vaccine disclosed in this example. ⁴ 

 [**4]  Wright seeks allowance, however, of claims which would provide, in varying degrees, a much broader scope of protection than the allowed claims. For example, independent process claim 1 reads:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.