Taq pol patent update

an125249 at anon.penet.fi an125249 at anon.penet.fi
Fri Oct 14 04:08:10 EST 1994

In article: <9410140356.AA24458 at anon.penet.fi> an6964 at anon.penet.fi writes:
> Doesn't the EPO require a definitive description of the specific
> product claimed to have been discovered/isolated/characterized in
> the patent application?  This set of claims (while perhaps useful
> as a tool in bludgeoning adversaries) does not appear on the face
> to be sufficiantly specific to describe the product the claimant
> actually has in his/her/its possession.

There are another 28 claims specific to thermus aquaticus YT1 polymerase.

About 4 weeks before the patent was allowed the EPO was all set to 
reject the application 'cos Roche had failed to prove that their
enzyme was different to that described by Chien or Kaledin. Roche
then came up with some immunological data which no-one to the best
of my knowledge has seen and somehow supports their claim
>Are they required to submit a sample of their enzyme?  X-ray
>and/or NMR studies?  Sequence data?  It seems to me there are
>far better ways of describing the enzyme they are specifying.


To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help at anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin at anon.penet.fi.

More information about the Methods mailing list