In re Gleave (Fed. Cir. 2009)
In 2008, the BPAI affirmed the examiner's rejection of Gleave's claims as anticipated. The claims focus on an antisense oligodeoxynucleotide designed to bind two different types of insulin-dependent growth factor binding protein (IGFBP). The prior art included a document that listed the genetic sequence of the complementary sense strands but did not identify any utility of the sequence.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the anticipation rejection - basing its decision on the rule that anticipatory prior art does need to be functional, useful, or show actual reduction to practice. Rather, to be anticipatory, the prior art must enable the skilled artisan to make the claimed invention.
In the 1973 Wiggins case, the CCPA ruled that the "mere naming of a compound in a reference, without more, cannot constitute a[n anticipatory] description of the compound." The Federal Circuit here distinguished Wiggins - noting that in Gleave's case, the sequence listing was sufficient to allow a skilled artisan to "at once envision each member of this limited class."
Notes:
- A claim by Gleave with functional language might not have been anticipated by the prior disclosure of the bare sequence.
- Patent Docs review the case
- Patent Hawk has the title "useless but enabling."
