Appeal No. 2001-0690
Application No. 08/309,315
basis for concluding that serine/threonine protein kinases would act similarly to
tyrosine protein kinases in conjunction with a DNA damaging agent,” as claimed.
According to the examiner (Final Rejection, page 3) “Margolis and
Akinaga teach killing cells using a DNA damaging agent, combined with a protein
kinase inhibitor. Akinaga teaches that kinase inhibitors are routinely used in anti-
tumor therapy, i.e., in a treatment whereby cells are killed.” Therefore, the
examiner concludes “[o]ne would expect a reasonable expectation of success of
substituting the specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor claimed for the generic protein
kinase inhibitor taught by the references to achieve cell killing based on the fact
that the references teach that protein kinase inhibitors in general kill cells.”
According to appellants (Brief, page 11) “the teaching of Akinaga is clearly
that inhibitors of protein kinase C, a serine/threonine protein kinase, can
potentiate the effect of the antitumor agent MMC, but general inhibitors of protein
kinases do not have such an effect.” Accordingly, appellants argue (Brief,
bridging sentence, pages 11-12) that “the practitioner of the art would be led by
Akinaga to conclude only that selective inhibitors of serine/threonine protein
kinases could potentiate the effects of anti-cancer agents, while general
inhibitors of protein kinases, including tyrosine protein kinases would not have
such effects.”
Appellants further argue (Brief, page 12) “Akinaga [pages 183-184] clearly
demonstrates that the state of the art at the time of the instant invention was one
of uncertainty with regard to the effects of protein kinase inhibitors on anticancer
agents.” Accordingly appellants conclude (id.) “there could have been no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007