Appeal No. 2007-0057
Application No. 10/174,586
SEQ ID NO:32 itself. Therefore, the specification does not adequately
describe the claimed genus of polypeptides.
Appellants argue that they have provided evidence to show that
PRO270 is similar to thioredoxin and therefore likely to share its activity.
(Br. 10.) This argument is not persuasive, for the reasons discussed above
with respect to utility.
4. ANTICIPATION BY LIN, STRAUSBERG, OR TANG
Claims 25-32 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by either of Lin5 or Strausberg.6 Similarly, claims 25-32 and 35-
37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or § 102(e) as anticipated by
Tang.7
The Examiner argues that Lin and Strausberg both disclose a sequence
that “has 100% identity to claimed SEQ ID NO:32,” and therefore
anticipates claims 25-32 and 35. (Answer 7.) The Examiner argues that
SEQ ID NO:2374 of Tang et al. has 100 % identity to claimed
SEQ ID NO:32. Additionally, Tang et al. teaches a chimera
polypeptide comprising the instantly claimed polypeptide fused
to a heterologous polypeptide. The heterologous polypeptide of
Tang et al. is an epitope tag and Fc region of an
immunoglobulin. Therefore, Tang et al. anticipates the claimed
invention.
(Id. at 8.)
Appellants do not dispute that the sequence disclosed by Lin and
Strausberg is identical to SEQ ID NO:32. Nor do Appellants dispute that
5 Lin, GenBank ID No. Q9Y320 (March 1999).
6 Strausberg, GenBank ID No. Q9Y320 (Nov. 2000).
7 Tang et al., WO 01/57188, published August 9, 2001.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013