Appeal No. 2002-1479 Page 6
Application No. 08/794,042
by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of the evidence with due consideration to
persuasiveness of argument.”).
In this case, we agree with Appellant that, when all the evidence of record
is taken into account, the examiner’s position is not sustainable. We agree with
Appellant that the Light reference relied on by the examiner must be read in
conjunction with previous publications by that author. The Light reference states
that “[b]ovine enterokinase was purified from the duodenal mucosal fluid by the
procedure of Fonseca and Light,” page 13197, citing Fonseca.
Fonseca, in turn, states that “[b]ovine enterokinase has been purified from
the mucosal fluid adhering to the intestinal wall. . . . The properties of the
enzyme in the fluid are identical with those found previously with the mucosal cell
preparation (Liepnieks, J.J. and Light, A. (1979) J. Biol. Chem. 254, 1677-1683).”
Abstract. More specifically, Fonseca states that “[t]he properties of the purified
mucosal fluid enterokinase were identical with the mucosal cell enzyme with
respect to the molecular weights of the intact enzyme, as well as the heavy and
light polypeptide chains, the amino acid composition, and the enzymatic activity.”
Page 14516, right-hand column. Thus, we agree with Appellants that those of
skill in the art would have considered the disclosures of Fonseca and Liepnieks
to also apply to the enzyme disclosed by Light.
Liepnieks discloses a bovine enterokinase light chain having the following
properties:
(1) a molecular weight of 35,000 daltons (abstract);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007