REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 109, 155-182, 184, and 186 are amended, claims 188 is canceled, and claim
`
`190 is added herein. Claims 1-182, 184, 186, and 187 remain pending in the captioned case.
`
`Claims 4-32, 36-64, 69, 74, 76, 83-93, 96, 99-104, 109-112, 116, 117, 124, 125, 131, 140-142,
`
`144-154, 157, 159-168, 170-172 and 174-182 remain withdrawn. Further examination and
`
`reconsideration of the presently claimed application are respectfully requested.
`
`Specific support for the amendments to claims 1, 109, 155-182 and 184 and added claim
`
`189 may be found in the specification as filed, with particular support found at 1H] 0548 and
`
`0554, and in the sequence listing. Accordingly, these amendments does not add new matter.
`
`Priority
`
`The Office Action dated April 28, 2010 only granted priority to the claims for the elected
`
`species "lysozyme" as being disclosed in US Provisional Application No. 60/976,676 filed on
`
`10/01/2007. However, the instant application is a Continuation in Part of US Patent Application
`
`10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003, which discloses the enzyme, lysozyme, at paragraph [0273].
`
`That the composition of the claims comprises an enzyme is disclosed throughout the
`
`specification of US Patent Application 10/655,345, such as at paragraphs [0120] and [0127]
`
`to [0132]. Applicants respectfully request that priority for "lysozyme" be corrected to at least the
`
`filing date of 09/04/2003 for US Patent Application 10/655,345.
`
`Objection to the Specification
`
`The specification was objected to for containing embedded hyperlinks at
`
`paragraph [0430]. The specification has been searched for any embedded hyperlinks and/or
`
`other form of browser-executable code, and found only the hyperlinks identified by this
`
`objection. The specification has been corrected by the submitted amendment replacing
`
`paragraph [0430] with a substitute paragraph deleting the cited hyperlinks. Accordingly, this
`
`33/61
`
`

`

`amendment constitutes no new matter. Applicants respectfully request that this objection be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 1-3, 35, 65-68, 70, 73, 75, 77-82, 94, 95, 97, 98, 105-108, 113-115, 118-123, 126-
`
`130, 132-139, 143, 155, 156, 158, 169, 173, 184 and 186-188 were provisionally rejected under
`
`the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
`
`claims 1-98 of McDaniel et al., (US Application No.: 12/696,651). In addition, claim 188 is
`
`canceled herein rendering rejection thereto moot. Applicants respectfully note the provisional
`
`rejection and will file a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection upon receiving notice that
`
`some or all of the claims in the captioned application are allowed.
`
`Section 112, lst Paragraph, Rejection for Written Description
`
`Claims 1-3, 35, 65-68, 70-73, 75, 77-82, 94, 97, 98, 105-108, 113-115, 118-123, 126-
`
`130, 132-139, 143, 155, 156, 158, 169, 173, 184 and 186-187 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.§
`
`112, first paragraph, for containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in
`
`such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventors had possession of the
`
`claimed invention. Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
`
`The Examiner argues that there is no structure associated with function with regard to the
`
`claimed members of the "genus of coating compositions or paints comprising: i) any protein,
`
`having any structure and having enzymatic activities like lipase, lysozyme, libiase, esterase,
`
`hydrolase. . .from any source inclosing variants, mutants, and recombinants of undefined
`
`structure and ii) any antimicrobial peptide from any source including variants, mutants and
`
`recombinants of undefined structure having antimicrobial activity against any undefined
`
`microorganism and said coating composition or paint having the recited functional limitations."
`
`34/61
`
`

`

`The Examiner argues the "Practical Limits of Function Prediction": 1. Devos et al.,
`
`(Proteins, Structure, Function and Genetics, 2000, Vol. 41: 98-107; known herein as "Devos et
`
`al.") teaches at the abstract (p. 98) that different aspects of protein filnction such as "(i)
`
`enzymatic function classification, (ii) filnctional annotations in the form of key words, (iii)
`
`classes of cellular filnction, and (iv) conservation of binding sites can only be reliably transferred
`
`between similar sequences to a modest degree. The reason for this difficulty is a combination of
`
`the unavoidable database inaccuracies and plasticity of proteins." The Examiner further quotes
`
`sections of Devos et al. that "questions about the current function prediction exercises and the
`
`intrinsic limitation of protein prediction" (column 1, 1] 3, p. 99) and "...the results here illustrate
`
`that transfer of function between similar sequences involves more difficulties than commonly
`
`believed. Our data show that even true pair-wise sequence relations, identified by their
`
`structural similarity, correspond in many cases to different functions" (column 2, 1] 2, p. 105) and
`
`further directs Applicant's attention to sections of pages 101-102 and Fig. 2a)-b) as "highlighting
`
`the structural and functional heterogeneity based on EC Classification numbers."
`
`Applicants have reviewed the cited reference and sections, and finds that, though
`
`increasing variations in sequences are correlated with change in function, the data of Devos et al.
`
`demonstrates that similar enzymatic sequences retain the same enzymatic activity for most
`
`species of sequences in the genera evaluated. Specifically, at the cited Fig 2b, which addresses
`
`the relationship between functional classification and sequence identity, it is stated "In (b) the
`
`proportion of pairs with both proteins assigned to the same functional class only reaches 70%
`
`when sequence identity is between 30 and 70%." Applicants submit that this statement of data
`
`demonstrates that the majority probability (70%) is that the evaluated protein's are assigned the
`
`samefunctional class when the sequence identity is in the minority — going as low as 30%. The
`
`data this reference presents is strongly indicative of conservation of filnction even with a
`
`minority sequence identity.
`
`The Examiner cites Whisstock et al., (Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics 2003, Vol. 36(3):
`
`307-340; known herein as "Whisstock et al.") at p. 309,114 "to reason from sequence and
`
`structure to function is to step onto much shakier ground"..."assignment of function on the basis
`
`of homology, in the absence of direct experimental evidence, will give the wrong answer"; at p.
`
`35/61
`
`

`

`312, 1] 5 "it is difficult to state criteria for successful prediction of function, since function is in
`
`principle a fuzzy concept. Given three protein functions, it would be more difficult to choose the
`
`pair with most similar filnction, although it is possible to define metrics for quantitative
`
`comparisons of different protein sequences and structures, this is more difficult for proteins of
`
`different functions"; at p. 3 l3, 1] 4 "in families of closely related proteins, mutations usually
`
`conserve fianction but modulate specificity"; and at p. 323,1] 1 "substitutions of a single,
`
`critically placed amino acid in an active-site residue may be sufficient to alter a protein's role
`
`fundamentally. "
`
`Applicants have reviewed Whisstock et al., and the specific sections cited by the
`
`Examiner. In regards to the assertion made at based on the quote from page 309, paragraph 4 of
`
`Whisstock et al., Applicants find that the context the preceding sentences provide for this quote
`
`supports Applicants point regarding Devos et al. above that similar sequences often have the
`
`same function, contrary to the Examiner's concerns:
`
`"It is indeed true that manyfamilies ofproteins contain homologues with the
`samefunction, widely distributed among species; for these, reasoningfrom
`homology does assign function correctly. However, the assumption that
`homologues share function is less and less safe as the sequences progressively
`diverge. Moreover, even closely related proteins can change function, either
`through divergence to a related filnction or by recruitment for a very different
`function (Ganfomina & Sa'nchez, 1999). In such cases, assignment of function on
`the basis of homology, in the absence of direct experimental evidence, will give
`the wrong answer, leading to misannotations in databanks." (Emphasis added)
`
`In regards to the quote from p. 312, 1b", this statement only asserts that there is more
`
`difficulty in selecting pairs of proteins on the basis of function, though that level of success is
`
`still great in light of the data provided by Devos et al. noted in Applicants arguments above. The
`
`Examiner also cites that p. 3 13, 1% regarding sequence changes that may alter specificity, but as
`
`stated "in families of closely related proteins, mutations usually conserve function by modulate
`
`specificity" again supporting Applicant's point that sequences that are related (i.e., similar, but
`
`not necessarily identical) can undergo additional mutation and retain function. The quote from
`
`p. 323, 1] 1 notes that substitution of a single, critical amino acid in an active site may alter a
`
`protein's role, and the Examiner filrther argues this point based on one or few amino acid
`
`36/61
`
`

`

`substitutions or a few percent difference in sequence identity affecting function of specific
`
`enzymes described in Witkowski et al., (Biochemistry 38: 1 1643-1 1650, 1999), Seffemick et al.
`
`(J. Bacteriol. 183(8):2405-2410, 2001), and Broun et al. (Science 282: 13 15-13 17, 1998). While
`
`in some cases, such as, for example, active site mutations, a limited number of amino acid
`
`changes may produce enzymes of different function, knowledge of such a limited number or
`
`percentage of variations is either available in the art, such as by previous active site analysis,
`
`sequence alignments, or other techniques, or readily contemplated by a skilled artisan, given that
`
`a limited number of changes are being considered.
`
`The Examiner cites Kisselev L. (Structure, 2002, Vol. 10:8-9) as teaching "functionally
`
`similar molecules have different structures." While certain species of some enzymes produced
`
`by convergent evolution may have differing sequences and similar function, Applicants submits
`
`that one or more sub-genera of enzymes in a fianctional classification does not show a lack of
`
`written description for the claimed enzymes when the written description requirement is met for
`
`each of the sub-genera, and that the Examiner has failed to relate the species of enzymes in
`
`Kisselev L. as somehow showing a lack of written description in the instant application.
`
`Finally, the Examiner refers the Applicants to the "revised guidelines concerning
`
`compliance with the written description requirement of U.S.C. 112, f1rstparagraph." Applicants
`
`have reviewed the "Written Description Training Materials: Revision 1 March 25, 2008" by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, and finds that Examples
`
`4 to7, 9, 11A, 11B, and 15 being most related to claims involving amino acid or nucleotide
`
`sequences, and thus are discussed below. Applicants have included an evaluation of the
`
`examples in this document directed to nucleotide sequences, given some similarity to the issues
`
`involved with amino acid sequences.
`
`Example 4 is directed to a DNA sequence comprising single disclosed nucleotide
`
`sequence (See claim 1, p. 13) which "the claimed DNAs may also include additional DNA
`
`sequences attached to either end of the sequence" and that claim 1 is found to meet the 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, 1st paragraph written description requirement (p. 13, under "Conclusion"). This example
`
`supports variations in size by the additional sequences incorporated to the ends of a nucleotide or
`
`37/61
`
`

`

`amino acid sequence, as a nucleotide or amino acid sequence. Applicants argue that such a
`
`sequence, whether it is novel and disclosed in an instant application or known in the art, may
`
`include additional sequences and meet the written description requirement.
`
`Example 5 is directed to an isolated protein comprising a partial amino acid sequence and
`
`further identified by other characteristics of the protein related to the protein purification (See
`
`claim 1, p. 17), which is taught as meeting the 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph written description
`
`requirement (p. 18, under "Conclusion"). Claim 2 (p. 17) is directed to a nucleic acid encoding
`
`the protein, and it is taught (p. 19, 3rd complete paragraph) that claim 2 does not meet the 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph written description requirement because "the specification fails to
`
`support even one species of DNA in the claimed genus." Example 6 describes claims to an
`
`isolated nucleic acid encoding a protein with receptor binding and stimulates tyrosine kinase
`
`activity (claim 1, p. 21), a SEQ ID No for such a nucleic acid (claim 2, p. 21), and a nucleic acid
`
`encoding a protein with the activity of the protein of claim 1 that hybridizes to the sequence of
`
`claim 2 (claim 3, p. 21). Claims 1 and 3 are taught (p. 23, 2Ild complete paragraph; p. 22, 4th
`
`complete paragraph) as not meeting the written description requirement as "those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not consider the applicant to have been in possession of the entire breadth
`
`of the claimed genus of nucleic acids based on the single species disclosed." Example 7
`
`describes a DNA encoding a protein's amino acid sequence of a SEQ ID No. (claim 1, p. 25), an
`
`isolated allele of the DNA encoding the same amino acid sequence (claim 2, p. 25), and an
`
`isolated allele of another DNA sequence of a SEQ ID no. (claim 3, p. 25). Claims 2 and 3 are
`
`taught (p. 27, 1st complete paragraph; p. 28, 1St incomplete paragraph) as not meeting the 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, 1St paragraph written description requirement again on the basis of "a description of
`
`only one member of this genus is not representative of the variants of the genus and is
`
`insufficient to support the claim."
`
`In direct contrast to these examples' teachings of failure to meet the written description
`
`requirement due to a "single species,
`
`one member of a genus," etc., the specification clearly
`
`delineates specific antimicrobial enzymes that have been isolated and characterized, and thus
`
`usable in the claimed compositions and methods in light of the disclosures therein, such as
`
`described for lysozyme at 1111 [0438]—[0442], including exemplary (i.e., non-limiting to other
`
`38/61
`
`

`

`sequences known and available in the art) nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1]1] [0441]-
`
`[0442]; lysostaphin at 1]1] [0443]-[0444], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences
`
`referenced at 1] [0444]; libiase at 1] [0445]; lysyl endopeptidase at 1]1] [0446]-[0447], including
`
`exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0447]; mutanolysin at 1]1] [0448]-
`
`[0449]; cellulase at 1]1] [0450]-[0451], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences
`
`referenced at 1] [0451]; chitinase at 1]1] [0452]-[0453], including exemplary nucleic and protein
`
`sequences referenced at 1] [0453]; u-agarase at 1] [0454]; B-agarase at 1] [0455], including
`
`exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0455]; N—acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine
`
`amidase at 1] [0456], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0456];
`
`lytic transglycosylase at 1]1] [0457]-[0458], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences
`
`referenced at 1] [0458]; glucan endo-1,3-B-D-glucosidase at 1] [0459], including exemplary
`
`nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0459]; endo-1,3(4)-B-gluscanase at 1] [0460],
`
`including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0460]; B-lytic
`
`metalloendopeptidase at 1] [0461]; 3-deoxy-2-octulosonidase at 1] [0462]; peptide-N4-(N—acetyl-
`
`B-glucosaminyl)asparagine amidase at 1] [0463], including exemplary nucleic and protein
`
`sequences referenced at 1] [0463]; mannosyl-glycoprotein endo-B-N—acetylglucosaminidase at
`
`1] [0464], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0464]; t-
`
`carrageenase at 1] [0465], including exemplary protein sequences referenced at 1] [0465]; k-
`
`carrageenase at 1] [0466], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at
`
`1] [0466]; k—carrageenase at 1] [0467]; (x-neoararo-oligosacaride hydrolase at 1] [0468]; and
`
`additional antimicrobial enzymes are described at 1]1] [0469]-[0470]. Further, lipolytic enzymes
`
`are described at 1]1] [0472]-[0514]; describing, for example, carboxylesterase at 1] [0487],
`
`including exemplary nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0487] and at Table 85;
`
`lipase at 1]1] [0488]-[0491], including exemplary nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced at
`
`1] [0491] and at Table 85; lipoprotein lipase at 1] [0492], including exemplary nucleic and protein
`
`sequences referenced at Table 85; acylglycerol lipase at 1] [0493], including exemplary nucleic
`
`and protein sequences referenced at Table 85; hormone-sensitive lipase at 1] [0494], including
`
`exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at Table 85; phospholipaseA1 at 1] [0495],
`
`including exemplary nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0495] and at Table 85;
`
`phospholipaseAz at 1] [0496], including exemplary nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced
`
`at 1] [0496]and at Table 85; phosphatidylinositol deacylase at 1] [0497], including exemplary
`
`39/61
`
`

`

`nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0497]; phospholipase C at 1] [0498],
`
`including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0498] and at Table 85;
`
`phospholipase D at 1] [0499], including exemplary nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced
`
`at 1] [0499] and at Table 85; phosphoinositide phospholipase C at 1] [0500], including exemplary
`
`nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0500] and at Table 85; phosphatidate
`
`phosphatase at 1] [0501]; lysophospholipase at 1] [0502], including exemplary nucleic acid and
`
`protein sequences referenced at 1] [0502] at Table 85; sterol esterase at 1] [0503], including
`
`exemplary nucleic acid and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0503] and at Table 85;
`
`galactolipase at 1] [0504]; sphingomyelin phosphodiesterase at 1] [0505]; sphingomyelin
`
`phosphodiesterase D at 1] [0506]; ceramidase at 1] [0507]; wax-ester hydrolase at 1] [0508]; fatty-
`
`acyl-ethyl-ester synthase at 1] [0509]; retinyl-palmitate esterase at 1] [0510], including exemplary
`
`nucleic acid and protein sequences reference at Table 85; ll-cz's-retinyl-palmitate hydrolase at
`
`1] [05 l l]; All-trans-retinyl-palmitate hydrolase at 1] [05 12]; cutinase at 1] [05 13]; and acyloxyacyl
`
`hydrolase at 1] [05 14]. Additionally, phosphoric triester hydrolases are described at 1]1] [05 15]-
`
`[0540]; describing, organophosphorus hydrolase at 1]1] [0527]-[053 1], including exemplary
`
`nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0528]; paraoxonase at 1] [0532], including
`
`exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0532]; carboxylase at 1] [0533],
`
`including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0533]; organophosphorus
`
`acid anhydrolase at 1] [0534]-[0535], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences
`
`referenced at 1] [0534]; prolidase, PepQ and aminopeptidase P at 1] [0536], including exemplary
`
`nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0536]; squid-type DFPase at 1]1] [0537]-[0538],
`
`including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0538]; mazur-type DFPase at
`
`1] [0539], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences referenced at 1] [0539]; as well as a
`
`phosphoric triester hydrolase at 1] [0540], including exemplary nucleic and protein sequences
`
`referenced at 1] [0540]. Also, sulfuric ester hydrolase is described at 1] [0541]; peptidase is
`
`described at 1] [0542]; peroxidase is described at 1] [0543]; and typsin is described at 1] [0544].
`
`Continuing in the evaluation of "Written Description Training Materials: Revision 1
`
`March 25, 2008" relationship to the current rejection, several examples teach that the written
`
`description requirement as not being meet due to a lack of sufficient structure and changes to that
`
`structure that may affect function. Example 9 is directed to a protein isolated from liver of an
`
`40/6l
`
`

`

`amino acid sequence of a SEQ ID No. (claim 1, p. 31) and an isolated variant of the protein
`
`(claim 2, p. 31). Claim 2 is taught (p. 32, 3rd paragraph) as not meeting the written description
`
`requirement:
`
`"the specification and claim do not describe any specific changes t be
`made. . .because the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes or
`
`characteristics that identify substitution, deletion and insertion variant members of
`the genus, and because the genus is highly variant, SEQ ID NO: 3 is insufficient
`to describe the genus, even when considered in light of the general knowledge in
`the art concerning fusion proteins... The claimed subject matter is not supported
`by an adequate written description because a representative number of species has
`not been described."
`
`Example 15 has similar teachings, as claim 1 (p. 51) is directed to an isolated nucleic acid
`
`encoding a mammalian protein. Claim 1 is not found to meet the written description requirement
`
`(p. 54, 4th complete paragraph) as:
`
`"the specification does not provide a representative number of species or
`sufficient common structural features to show that the applicant would have been
`in possession of the claimed genus as a whole at the time of filing."
`
`Example 10 describes an isolated protein of an amino acid sequence of a SEQ ID No.
`
`(claim 1, p. 33), an isolated variant of the protein of at least 95% identical to the SEQ ID No.
`
`(claim 2, p. 33), and an isolated variant of claim 2 that catalyzes a reaction (claim 3, p. 33). The
`
`variant of claim 3 having the catalytic activity is taught as not meeting the written description
`
`requirement (p. 35, paragraph 8), with factors for considerations (p. 35, paragraphs 5-6)
`
`including:
`
`"The specification discloses the reduction to practice of one species within
`the claimed genus; specifically, the protein having the amino acid sequence of
`SEQ ID NO: 3. There are no drawings or structural formulas disclosed of any
`other proteins that catalyze the reaction A->B.
`The recitation of a polypeptide with at least 95% amino acid sequence
`identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 represents a partial structure. That is, the claimed
`proteins share at least 95% of the structure of SEQ ID NO: 3, while 5% of the
`structure can vary. There is no teaching in the specification regarding which 5%
`of the structure can be varied while retaining the ability of the protein to catalyze
`the reaction A->B. Further, there is no art-recognized correlation between any
`structure (other than SEQ ID NO: 3) and the activity of catalyzing A->B, based
`
`41/61
`
`

`

`on which those of ordinary skill in the art could predict which amino acids can
`vary from SEQ ID NO: 3 without losing the catalytic activity. Consequently,
`there is no information about which amino acids can vary from SEQ ID NO: 3 in
`the claimed genus of proteins and still retain the catalytic activity."
`
`Further, example llA relates to "an isolated nucleic acid that encodes a polypeptide with
`
`at least 85% amino acid sequence identity to" a SEQ ID No. (claim 1, p. 37), and such a nucleic
`
`acid where the polypeptide has an activity (claim 2, p. 37). Similar to example 10, it is taught
`
`that the written description requirement is not meet for claim 2 (p. 39, lSt complete paragraph),
`
`stating :
`
`"However, if activity X is enzymatic, and there is no disclosure of the active site
`amino acid residues responsible for the catalytic activity, lack of that kind of
`correlating information may be a problem. Similarly, if activity X is as a ligand,
`and there is no disclosure of the domain(s) responsible for the ligand activity, the
`absence of information may be persuasive that those of skill in the art would not
`take the disclosure as generic."
`
`However, example's llB teachings, by contrast to the previous examples 9, 15, 10, and
`
`11A described above, support that the instant application's claims meet the written description
`
`requirement. The claims relative to example llA are identical, but claim 2 (bridging paragraph
`
`pp. 41-42) is deemed to meet the written description requirement based upon disclosure of
`
`additional structural information:
`
`"the specification identifies two domains responsible for activity Y, z'.e., a binding
`domain and catalytic domain. The specification also predicts that conservative
`mutations in these domains will result in a protein having activity Y. Although all
`conservative amino acid substitutions in these domains will not necessarily result
`in a protein having activity Y, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that
`many of these conservative substitutions would result in a protein having the
`required activity. Further, amino acid substitutions outside of the two identified
`functional domains are unlikely to greatly affect activity Y. Thus, a correlation
`exists between the fianction of the claimed protein and the structure of the
`disclosed binding and catalytic domains. Consequently, there is information about
`which nucleic acids can vary from SEQ ID NO: 1 in the claimed genus of nucleic
`acids and still encode a polypeptide having activity Y. Based on the applicant’s
`disclosure and the knowledge within the art, those of ordinary skill in the art
`would conclude that the applicant would have been in possession of the claimed
`
`42/61
`
`

`

`genus of nucleic acids based on the disclosure of the single species of SEQ ID
`NO: 1."
`
`In keeping with the teachings of these examples, the specification meets the written
`
`description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1St paragraph, as it clearly teaches numerous non-
`
`limiting examples of sequences available in the art, including various modifications incorporated
`
`in those sequences (e. g., active site mutated sequences), that may be used in conjunction with
`
`structural and sequence knowledge for various enzymes and their active site domains described
`
`in the specification or as would be know in the art. In particular, many of such enzyme
`
`sequences have been modeled and analyzed in the art to identify correlations between structure
`
`and enzymatic activity (e.g., important fianctional domains, active site residues, common
`
`structural features), with specific, but non-limiting, examples of such relationships described in
`
`the specification at the paragraphs cited above, and more specifically at paragraphs [0439],
`
`[0449], [0457], [0458], [0474], [0475], [0476], [0529], [0530], [0531], [0538], and [0559]-
`
`[0590].
`
`The Examiner's concerns regarding a lack of disclosure of structure is erroneous, as the
`
`specification provides overwhelming recitations of structures for most described species of
`
`antimicrobial enzymes and peptides, including numerous variant sequences, as well as coating
`
`and material types that can be combined with such enzymes and peptide sequences. Applicants
`
`note the Examiner's acknowledgement that the specification teaches in Examples 1-6 and 22 "a
`
`few well characterized coating compositions and paints comprising a few well characterized
`
`enzymes like known lipases and lysozyme. . .and said paint filrther comprising an anti-microbial
`
`polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:40 having anti-filngal activity." Applicants appreciate this
`
`acknowledgement of disclosures of the specification by the Examiner, but Applicants
`
`respectfully disagree that the specification are so limited, in light of the disclosures of structure
`
`and modifications described in the specification described above, coupled with additional
`
`knowledge of the claimed enzyme's structure and relations of that structure to function. Further,
`
`numerous specific working and prophetic examples of enzymes, peptides, specific material types
`
`(e.g., coatings) and assays for activity demonstrated at examples 7-21, and 23-48, including:
`
`lysozyme in combination with an antimicrobial peptide in an acrylic latex coating described in
`
`43/61
`
`

`

`example 7; lysozyme comprising coatings in examples 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 17; assays for
`
`detection of the antimicrobial activity of a coating component such as an enzyme (e. g.,
`
`lysozyme) and/or an antimicrobial peptide demonstrated in examples 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17
`
`and other examples; a sulfatase in latex coatings in example 18; phosphodiesterase I in acrylic
`
`latex coatings and assays for activity in a coating demonstrated in examples 19 and 20; lipase in
`
`an alkyd/oil solvent-bome coating and an acrylic latex coating demonstrated in examples 21, 23
`
`and 24; recombinant and industrial scale preparation of an organophosphorus hydrolase and
`
`coatings (e. g., paints) comprising the organophosphorus hydrolase and activity assays
`
`demonstrated in examples 26-35 and 44-46; numerous sources organisms organophosphorus
`
`degrading enzymes and nucleic acid sequences encoding lipolytic enzymes listed at examples 25
`
`and 43; and various specific materials that may comprise enzyme(s) and peptide(s) (e.g.,
`
`elastomers, fillers, adhesives, sealants, textile finishes, waxes) that are described at examples 37-
`
`42 and 48.
`
`Further, the Examiner has not met the burden to show that the claims are not adequately
`
`described or lack of enablement due to a "lack of specific sequence." This argument by the
`
`Examiner is incorrect as a standard for the written description requirement, and consequentially,
`
`enablement. The disclosure as originally filed need not provide "in haec verba support for the
`
`claimed subject matter at issue," Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Pharmaceutical Co., 230 F.3d
`
`1320, USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1349, 1358, 76
`
`USPQ2d at 1084, the Federal Circuit held that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`
`(BPAI):
`
`erred in ruling that § 112 imposes a per se rule requiring recitation in the
`specification of the nucleotide sequence of the claimed DNA, when that sequence
`is already known in the field. at 1349
`The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written
`description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or
`chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes. at
`1 3 5 8
`
`In Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052,1073 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`the court upheld a district court decision that claims to a polypeptide encoded by a modified
`
`44/61
`
`

`

`reverse transcriptase nucleotide sequence were not invalid under the written description
`
`requirement, even though the claims were not limited to sequences recited in the specification.
`
`Applicants hold that the claims are not indefinite in light of the specifications written
`
`description of enzymes in the art, and that this description further supports the enablement of the
`
`claims. As described in Lizard Tech Inc, v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343,
`
`76 USPQ2d 1724, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005):
`
`a recitation of how to make and use an invention across the full breadth of the
`
`claim is ordinarily sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor possesses the filll
`scope of the invention and vice versa. (emphasis added).
`
`Further, the specification also meets the written description requirement in regards to
`
`"antimicrobial peptides" by disclosure of nearly 200 species of antimicrobial peptide sequences
`
`in the sequence listing. Written description support for all coatings and compositions are found
`
`throughout the specification as filed.
`
`However, merely to forward the case, Applicants have amended the independent claims
`
`to specify "wherein the antimicrobial peptide comprises a peptide sequence of SEQ ID No. 40 or
`
`a fianctionally equivalent conservative, common amino acid substituted peptide sequence
`
`wherein any amino acid substitution has no more than a +/- 2 difference in hydropathic value of
`
`the Kyte-Doolittle scale relative thereto." Additionally, Applicants have added independent
`
`claim 189 with alternative language regarding the antimicrobial enzymes for the Examiner's
`
`consideration.
`
`For at least the reasons cited above, it is asserted that the specification conveys to one
`
`skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter and, therefore, the
`
`written description requirement is satisfied for the present claims. Accordingly, removal of this
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejections of the claims is respectfully requested.
`
`45/61
`
`

`

`Section 112, 1st Paragraph, Rejection for Enablement
`
`Claims 1-3, 35, 65-68, 70-73, 75, 77-82, 94, 97, 98, 105-108, 113-115, 118-123,

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket