In re Kubin

Citation561 F.3d 1351
Decision Date03 April 2009
Docket NumberNo. 2008-1184.,2008-1184.
PartiesIn re Marek Z. KUBIN and Raymond G. Goodwin.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Barbara R. Rudolph, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With her on the brief were Herbert H. Mintz and Bart A. Gerstenblith. Of counsel was Stuart L. Watt, Wendy A. Whiteford and Gail A. Katz, Amgen Inc., of Thousand Oaks, CA, and Kathleen Fowler, of Seattle, WA.

Janet A. Gongola, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on the brief were William G. Jenks, Mary L. Kelly, and Stephen Walsh, Associate Solicitors. Of counsel was Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor.

Rouget F. Henschel, Foley & Lardner LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization. With him on the brief were Stephen B. Maebius and Philip G. Kiko. Of counsel was Hans Sauer, Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washington, DC, and Brian P. Barrett, Eli Lilly and Company, of Indianapolis, IN.

Matthew I. Kreeger, Morrison & Foerster LLP, of San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. Of counsel on the brief was Beth S. Brinkmann, of Washington, DC.

Jeffrey P. Kushan, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Glaxosmithkline, et al. With him on the brief were Paul J. Zegger, Jon P. Santamauro, and Eric M. Solovy.

James J. Kelley, Eli Lilly and Company, of Indianapolis, IN, for amicus curiae Eli Lilly and Company. With him on the brief were MaryAnn Wiskerchen, Gregory A. Cox, Steven P. Caltrider and Robert A. Armitage.

Before RADER, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

Marek Kubin and Raymond Goodwin ("appellants") appeal from a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the "Board") rejecting the claims of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/667,859 ("'859 Application") as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack of written description. Ex parte Kubin, No. 2007-0819, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1410 (B.P.A.I.2007) ("Board Decision"). Because the Board correctly determined that appellants' claims are unpatentably obvious, this court affirms.

I.

This case presents a claim to a classic biotechnology invention—the isolation and sequencing of a human gene that encodes a particular domain of a protein. This court provided a primer on the basics of this technology in In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 895-99 (Fed.Cir.1988). Specifically, appellants claim DNA molecules ("polynucleotides") encoding a protein ("polypeptide") known as the Natural Killer Cell Activation Inducing Ligand ("NAIL").

Natural Killer ("NK") cells, thought to originate in the bone marrow, are a class of cytotoxic lymphocytes that play a major role in fighting tumors and viruses. NK cells express a number of surface molecules which, when stimulated, can activate cytotoxic mechanisms. NAIL is a specific receptor protein on the cell surface that plays a role in activating the NK cells.

The specification of the claimed invention recites an amino acid sequence of a NAIL polypeptide. The invention further isolates and sequences a polynucleotide that encodes a NAIL polypeptide. Moreover, the inventors trumpet their alleged discovery of a binding relationship between NAIL and a protein known as CD48. The NAIL-CD48 interaction has important biological consequences for NK cells, including an increase in cell cytotoxicity and in production of interferon. Representative claim 73 of appellants' application claims the DNA that encodes the CD48-binding region of NAIL proteins:

73. An isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide at least 80% identical to amino acids 22-221 of SEQ ID NO:2, wherein the polypeptide binds CD48.

In other words, appellants claim a genus of isolated polynucleotides encoding a protein that binds CD48 and is at least 80% identical to amino acids 22-221 of SEQ ID NO:2—the disclosed amino acid sequence for the CD48-binding region of NAIL.

Appellants' specification discloses nucleotide sequences for two polynucleotides falling within the scope of the claimed genus, namely SEQ ID NO:1 and SEQ ID NO:3. SEQ ID NO: 1 recites the specific coding sequence of NAIL, whereas SEQ ID NO: 3 recites the full NAIL gene, including upstream and downstream non-coding sequences. The specification also contemplates variants of NAIL that retain the same binding properties:

Variants include polypeptides that are substantially homologous to the native form, but which have an amino acid sequence different from that of the native form because of one or more deletions, insertions or substitutions. Particular embodiments include, but are not limited to, polypeptides that comprise from one to ten deletions, insertions or substitutions of amino acid residues, when compared to a native sequence.

A given amino acid may be replaced, for example, by a residue having similar physiochemical characteristics. Examples of such conservative substitutions include substitution of one aliphatic residue for another, such as Ile, Val, Leu, or Ala for one another; substitutions of one polar residue for another, such as between Lys and Arg, Glu and Asp, or Gln and Asn; or substitutions of one aromatic residue for another, such as Phe, Trp, or Tyr for one another. Other conservative substitutions, e.g., involving substitutions of entire regions having similar hydrophobicity characteristics, are well known.

'859 Application at 26. However, the specification does not indicate any example variants of NAIL that make these conservative amino acid substitutions.

II.

The Board rejected appellants' claims as invalid under both § 103 and § 112. With regard to the § 112 rejection, the Board found the genus of nucleic acids of representative claim 73 unsupported by an adequate written description. First, the Board observed that although appellants had sequenced two nucleic acids falling within the scope of claim 73, they had not disclosed any variant species where amino acids 22-221 were different in any way from the disclosed SEQ ID NO:2 sequence. Thus, the Board concluded that appellants were not entitled to their genus claim of DNA molecules encoding proteins 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:2:

[Appellants] have not described what domains of those sequences are correlated with the required binding to CD48, and thus have not described which of NAIL's amino acids can be varied and still maintain binding. Thus ... their Specification would not have shown possession of a sufficient number of sequences falling within their potentially large genus to establish possession of their claimed genus.

Without a correlation between structure and function, the claim does little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.

Board Decision at 16-17.

Regarding obviousness, the Board rejected appellants' claims over the combined teachings of U.S. Patent No. 5,688,690 ("Valiante") and 2 Joseph Sambrook et al., Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual 43-84 (2d ed.1989) ("Sambrook"). The Board also considered, but found to be cumulative to Valiante and Sambrook, Porunelloor Mathew et al., Cloning and Characterization of the 2B4 Gene Encoding a Molecule Associated with Non-MHC-Restricted Killing Mediated by Activated Natural Killer Cells and T Cells, 151 J. Immunology 5328-37 (1993) ("Mathew").

Valiante discloses a receptor protein called "p38" that is found on the surface of human NK cells. Valiante teaches that the p38 receptor is present on virtually all human NK cells and "can serve as an activation marker for cytotoxic NK cells." '690 Patent col.3 ll.3-4; see also id. at col.5 ll.6-7 ("Stimulation of p38 results in activation of cytotoxicity"). Valiante also discloses and claims a monoclonal antibody specific for p38 called "mAB C1.7." The Board found (and appellants do not dispute) that Valiante's p38 protein is the same protein as NAIL. Board Decision at 4. A monoclonal antibody is an antibody that is mass produced in the laboratory from a single clone and that recognizes only one antigen. Monoclonal antibodies are useful as probes for specifically identifying and targeting a particular kind of cell.

Valiante teaches that "[t]he DNA and protein sequences for the receptor p38 may be obtained by resort to conventional methodologies known to one of skill in the art." '690 Patent col.7 ll.49-51.

For example, the receptor may be isolated by immunoprecipitation using the mAb C1.7. Alternatively, the receptor may be obtained by prokaryotic expression cloning, using the lambda phage gtll, which is described in detail in Sambrook et al, Molecular Cloning, A Laboratory Manual, 2d edit., Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. (1989), pp. 2.43-2.84, incorporated by reference herein.

Additionally, as described in Example 12 below, the DNA sequence encoding the receptor can be obtained by the "panning" technique of screening a human NK cell library by eukaryotic expression cloning, of which several are known. Briefly, plasmids are constructed containing random sequences of a human NK cell library which are obtained by restriction digestion. Such libraries may be made by conventional techniques or may be available commercially.

Suitable cells, preferably mammalian cells, such as COS-1 cells, are transfected with the plasmids and the mAb C1.7 antibody employed to identify transfectants containing the receptor after repeated rounds of panning. The receptor insert in these cells is then identified and sequenced by conventional techniques, such as overlapping deletion fragments [Sambrook et al. cited above]. Other known techniques may also be employed to sequence the receptor and/or the mAb C1.7.

Id. at col.7 l.51-col.8 l.7. Example 12 of Valiante's patent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1162 cases
  • Eli Lilly And Co. v. Sicor Pharm.S Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • March 31, 2010
    ...when a skilled individual “merely pursues ‘known options' from a ‘finite number of identified, predictable solutions.’ ” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting KSR Int'l, 550 U.S. 398, 421, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007)). Section 103 also bars patentability unless “the improvement......
  • Ass'n For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 5, 2010
    ...to biological products in response to § 102 and/or § 103 challenges has no bearing on the present inquiry. See, e.g., In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir.2009) (considering obviousness of claims); In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed.Cir.1988) (same). The Patent Act sets out patent invalidity......
  • Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • September 15, 2009
    ...artisan would have perceived a reasonable expectation of success in making the invention in light of the prior art. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2009) ("[S]tated in the familiar terms of this court's longstanding case law, the record shows that a skilled artisan would have ......
  • Fractus v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • June 28, 2012
    ...of skill in the art. JMOL at 30–32.Applicable Law Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2009). Obviousness is based on several factual inquiries: “(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences betwe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Inventions In Unpredictable Fields -- Not Always Unobvious
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 15, 2012
    ...and have nonsupercoiled DNA. In affirming the position of the Board of Patent Appeals, the Federal Circuit cited to In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) to emphasize that a finding of obviousness does not require a......
  • Inventions In Unpredictable Fields - Not Always Unobvious
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 8, 2013
    ...and have nonsupercoiled DNA. In affirming the position of the Board of Patent Appeals, the Federal Circuit cited to In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) to emphasize that a finding of obviousness does not require a......
  • PTAB Trial Standard Of Review Requires Affirmance Despite Contrary Evidence
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 14, 2016
    ...findings underlying the question of obviousness: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The factual findings include: "(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and......
  • Obviousness By Combination Of References Is Not Undermined By Inventor's Declarations To The Contrary
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 1, 2012
    ...success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." Slip op. at 8 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. On appeal, the Federal Circuit faced the issue of whether there was a reasonable expectation of success sufficient to combi......
5 books & journal articles
  • Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-4, May 2013
    • May 1, 2013
    ...patients’ DNA can be compared.”). 321. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). 322. Id. 323. Id. 324. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 325. Id. at 1360–61. 326. Id. at 1358. 327. Linda J. Demaine & Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Reinventing the Double Helix: A Novel an......
  • Patent law and the two cultures.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 120 No. 1, October - October 2010
    • October 1, 2010
    ...(highlighting the emergence of new types of patents and patent practice for which injunctive relief may be inappropriate). (436.) 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. (437.) Id.; see KSR Ruling Guides Application of 'Obvious To Try' Test to Biotech Claim, 77 U.S.L.W. 1634, 1634 (2009). (438.) Res......
  • Unpredictability in patent law and its effect on pharmaceutical innovation.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 76 No. 3, June 2011
    • June 22, 2011
    ...& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Rader, J, dissenting). (191.) 51 F.3d 1552, 1558-59 (Fed. Cir. 1995). (192.) 561 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. (193.) Pfaff v. Wells Elecs. Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 60 (1998) (collecting cases). (194.) Id. at 66 & n.12. (195.) Shubha Gho......
  • Rules for patents.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 52 No. 6, May 2011
    • May 1, 2011
    ...(Fed. Cir. 2003); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1567-68 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (18.) See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. (19.) See Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT