Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU 1632 703-305-4051.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Patenting Antisense Oligonucleotides and Methods
Advertisements

35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph Long V. Le SPE, AU 1641 (703)
Incorporation by Reference
Enablement Issues in the Examination of Antibodies
Enablement and Written Description Intro to IP – Prof Merges Jan. 19, 2012.
Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
1 Types of Vaccines and Patentability Considerations Christina Chan Supervisory Primary Examiner Art Unit 1644 Phone:
Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations.
1 Homology Language Brian R. Stanton Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (703)
Experimental Data to Support Patentability of a Biological Pharmaceutical in the U.S. October 14, 2011 Presented by M. Paul Barker 1.
1 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the Wands Analysis Remy Yucel, SPE 1636 (571)
Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit U.S.C. 112, second paragraph Allows the public to determine exactly what the boundaries of the claimed inventions.
1 35 USC 112, 1 st paragraph enablement Enablement Practice in TC 1600 Deborah Reynolds, SPE
35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph MPEP 2181 – 2186 Jean Witz Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
Gene Therapy: Overcoming Enablement Rejections Karen M. Hauda Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1632 (703)
Memorandum - 35 U.S.C. 112, Second and Sixth Paragraphs Robert Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
Proteomics and “Orphan” Receptors Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
Claim Interpretation By: Michael A. Leonard II and Jared T. Olson.
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
1 Biotechnology Partnership Meeting April 17, 2001 James Martinell Senior Level Examiner Technology Center 1600.
Determination of Obviousness Practice Under the Genus-Species Guidelines and In re Ochiai; In re Brouwer Sreeni Padmanabhan & James Wilson Supervisory.
1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) Gary Jones SPE, Technology Center 1600 (703)
Patent Processing – Examination Issues Patent, Trademark, and Copyright - Law and Policy 5-8 November 2007 Amman, Jordan Global Intellectual Property Academy.
Animals and Transgenesis Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Transgenic Animals — How they are made Examination of Transgenic.
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Examining Issues When.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 25, 2008 Patent - Utility.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 28, 2007 Patent - Enablement.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 27, 2008 Patent - Enablement.
Intellectual Property
Patent Overview by Jeff Woller. Why have Patents? Patents make some people rich – but, does that seem like something the government should protect? Do.
Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1700 (Fed.Cir. 1999)
By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.
Examination Issues: Immunology Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Stem Cells — Origin Examination of Stem Cell Claims — Statutes — Sample Claims.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
March 2009 Current Status of Biotech Patenting In India Kausalya Santhanam Ph.D Patent Agent USPTO, IPO Confidential.
1 ANTICIPATION BY INHERENCY IN PRIOR ART James O. Wilson Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
1 Kathleen Kerr Bragdon Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 Kathleen Kerr Bragdon Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 Patents.
1 “In the Examination Process” CLAIM INTERPRETATION.
The Patent Document II Class Notes: January 23, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
Patenting Interfering RNA
Overcoming Prior Art References Non-Enabling Prior Art References Gary Kunz SPE Art Unit 1616.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Patentability of Reach-Through Claims Brian R. Stanton Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600 (703)
Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner.
Trilateral Project WM4 Report on comparative study on Examination Practice Relating to Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Haplotypes. Linda S.
1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.
Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.
Patenting Interfering RNA John LeGuyader – SPE Art Unit 1635 (571)
How to Claim your Biotech- Based Invention Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Pharmaceutical Composition Claims and Enablement Robert J. Hill, Jr. Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY ARDIN MARSCHEL SPE AU 1631 (571)
1 Enablement Issues in Pharmaceutical Claims Joseph K. M c Kane Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit Ardin Marschel Supervisory Patent.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
(c) 2004, David Schnapf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 1 Examiner Use of Background Statements David Schnapf Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Patents II Disclosure Requirements Class 12 Notes Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2004 Professor Wagner.
1 Utility Guidelines, Homology Claims and Anti-Sense Molecule Claims Drew Hissong, Ph.D. dhissong*sughrue.com Sughrue Mion, PLLC
Introduction to Intellectual Property Class of Sept
Antibody Decisions and Their Compliance with the Written Description Requirement Workgroup
Written Description Prof. Merges
Processes Which Employ Non-Obvious Products
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
Patentability Issues and Mechanism Claims
Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003
Patents II Disclosure Requirements
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Examination Issues: Immunology
Presentation transcript:

Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU

35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention."

How to Make

Analyze the scope of the claim Are all materials/components known? Is there sufficient guidance to put the components together to arrive at the claimed vector?

How to Use Analyzing the function of the vector

How does the specification disclose to use the vector? If the specification discloses a specific, substantial, and credible utility for the claimed vector, and the skilled artisan could use the claimed vector without undue experimentation, then the claim complies with the how-to-use prong of the enablement requirement.

Scope of Enablement “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Scope of Enablement “That claims are interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything in the specification must be read into the claims.” Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957, 220 USPQ 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984).

Intended Use Limitation When a compound or composition is limited by a particular use, enablement of that claim should be evaluated based on that limitation. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

No Limitation of Use When a product claim is not limited by a recited use, any enabled use that would reasonably correlate with the entire scope of that claim is sufficient to preclude a rejection based upon a lack of enablement. See 35 U.S.C. 112, 1 st paragraph Enablement Training Manual, August 1996, Overview, page 20.

Example G 35 U.S.C. 112, 1 st paragraph Enablement Training Manual, August A viral vector comprising: a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a gene of interest, not normally present in the virus, inserted within the DNA of the virus; and algernin complexed to the cell binding receptor of the virus. 2. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the complex of claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. 3. A method for introducing a gene of interest into a cell comprising contacting said cell with the viral vector of claim 1.

Example G cont. The specification discloses an in vitro use for the viral vector of claim 1 and clearly discloses how to make and use the viral vector in the in vitro environment. Since claim 1 does not recite any environment of use, only one enabled use covering the scope of the claim is needed to enable the claim. Therefore, the disclosure with respect to the in vitro use of the viral vector is sufficient to enable claim 1 and it would be inappropriate to include claim 1 in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. (Emphasis added).

Example-1 1. A viral vector for use in gene therapy comprising: a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a gene of interest, not normally present in the virus, inserted within the DNA of the virus.

Example-2 1. A viral vector comprising: a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a therapeutic gene of interest, not normally present in the virus, inserted within the DNA of the virus.

Example-3 1. A viral vector for delivering a gene of interest to a cell comprising: a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a gene of interest, not normally present in the virus, inserted within the DNA of the virus.

Example-4 1. A viral vector comprising: a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a gene of interest, not normally present in the virus, inserted within the DNA of the virus; wherein, when delivered to a cell, the gene of interest is expressed at a therapeutic level.

Example-5 1. A viral vector comprising: a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a nucleic acid sequence encoding CFTR, inserted within the DNA of the virus.

Example-6 1. A method of delivering a viral vector to a mammal comprising: contacting cells of said mammal with a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a gene of interest, not normally present in the virus, inserted within the DNA of the virus.

Example-7 1. A method of delivering a viral vector to a mammal comprising: contacting cells of said mammal with a virus comprising a cell binding receptor on the surface thereof and a nucleic acid sequence encoding CFTR, inserted within the DNA of the virus.

Thank You! Questions?