Appeal No. 2003-0998 Page 9
Application No. 08/676,143
members of the claimed libraries that have a particular biological activity. See,
e.g., pages 17-21.
The specification also provides working examples of receptor libraries
containing synthetic receptors that bind the neuropeptides Leu Enkephalin and
Met Enkephalin. See pages 72-81. Based on the results of these examples, the
specification concludes that “the methods described [in the specification] may
allow the development of receptors for almost any substrates even without
knowing the exact shape, size and arrangement of functionalities involved.”
Page 82.
The examiner has not provided adequate evidence or sound scientific
reasoning to support a conclusion to the contrary. Thus, the examiner has not
shown that undue experimentation would have been required either to make or to
use the claimed synthetic receptor libraries. The rejection for nonenablement is
reversed.
3. Anticipation
The examiner rejected claims 25-32 and 73 as anticipated by Lebl. The
examiner characterized Lebl as disclosing “libraries of synthetic test compounds”
comprising compounds meeting the “template” and “oligomer” limitations of the
instant claims; the examiner points specifically to Lebl’s compounds 2-5, 7, 11,
12, 14, and 15 as meeting the limitations of the instant claims. See the
Examiner’s Answer, pages 8-10.
Appellants acknowledge that Lebl’s “Example 11 comes the closest to
providing a cyclic scaffold with the possibility for attaching more than one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007