Ex Parte Stryer et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1819                                                                             
                Application 09/886,055                                                                       
                6).  The Examiner relies on Burford to teach a protein having SEQ ID NO.                     
                55 (id.).  Based on this evidence, the Examiner concludes that                               
                            [i]t would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the                          
                      method as taught by Krautwurst et al. with the sequences as                            
                      taught by Burford et al. since Burford et al. note “The largest                        
                      subfamily of GPCRs, the olfactory receptors, are also members                          
                      of the rhodopsin-like GPCR family.  These receptors function                           
                      by transducing odorant signals.  Numerous distinct olfactory                           
                      receptors are required to distinguish different odors.  Each                           
                      olfactory sensory neuron expresses only one type of olfactory                          
                      receptor, and distinct spatial zones of neurons expressing                             
                      distinct receptors are found in nasal passages.  However, the                          
                      expression of olfactory-like receptors is not confined to                              
                      olfactory tissues (see p. 2 paragraph 0008).”                                          
                (Answer 6.)  According to the Examiner, “[a]n ordinary practitioner would                    
                have been motivated to use the method as taught by Krautwurst et al. with                    
                the sequences as taught by Burford et al. in order to assess the physiological               
                functions of these receptors in the presence of a variety of odorants”                       
                (Answer 6-7).                                                                                
                      Appellants do not dispute that Krautwurst discloses a method having                    
                all the steps set forth in claim 23 (Br. 7).  Appellants also do not dispute that            
                Burford teaches a protein having SEQ ID NO:55 (id.).  However, Appellants                    
                assert that neither Krautwurst nor Burford teach that a protein having SEQ                   
                ID NO: 55 is an olfactory receptor (Br. 6)5.  Accordingly, Appellants assert                 
                that it is improper for the Examiner to simply conclude, without an                          
                                                                                                            
                5 See also Br. 7 (Burford “fail to teach or identify SEQ ID NO-55 as                         
                encoding a human olfactory receptor”).  Therefore, the dissent’s assertion                   
                that “Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that ‘Burford                         
                discloses SEQ ID NO:27 (Appellants’ SEQ ID NO :55 . . .) is an olfactory                     
                receptor’ (Answer 7-8 (citing Burford 42 (Table 3)).  (See Br. passim.)”                     
                (infra 13: ¶10) is factually incorrect.                                                      
                                                     6                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013