Appeal No. 2005-0548
Application No. 09/839,164
Thus, since Tame and Hoffman explicitly teach each and every limitation set forth in
representative claim 30, we find that the prior art anticipates the appellants’ invention.
We have not overlooked the appellants’ argument that human alpha globin chain
taught by both Tame and Hoffman were produced in E. coli. Brief, p. 6. The appellants
argue that the purification procedures disclosed in the applied prior art did not remove
endotoxin and, thus, the solutions taught therein would not be suitable for subcutaneous
administration to humans. Id. We find this argument to be unconvincing for several
reasons.
First, representative claim 30 is not directed to a pharmaceutical composition for
use in humans; i.e., no particular species is recited. Accordingly, we find that this
argument does not address a limitation present in the claims.
Second, as pointed out by the examiner, the specification discloses that it is
advantageous to use a stem cell proliferation inhibitor (INPROL)(e.g., alpha globin)
which is produced in a prokaryotic host such as E. coli. Specification, p. 17, para. 1.
That is, the specification discloses:
In an advantageous embodiment, INPROL is the product of prokaryotic or
eukaryotic host expression (e.g., bacterial, yeast, higher plant, insect and
mammalian cells in culture) of exogenous DNA sequences obtained by genomic
or cDNA cloning or by gene synthesis. That is, in an advantageous embodiment
INPROL is “recombinant INPROL”. The product of expression in typical yeast
(e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae) or prokaryote (e.g., E. coli) host cells are free
of association with any mammalian proteins.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007