Appeal 2007-2517
Application 10/311,196
3) Table 3 of the Specification shows “Signature Sequences, Domains
and Motifs” that are characteristic of “metabotropic glutamate GPCR”
signature sequences (Spec. 82).
4) Other than in Tables 2 and 3, there is no description of SEQ ID
NO: 2 in the Specification.
Based on these facts, Appellants’ conclude: “Therefore, because the
specification indicates that Table 2 provides data related to the function of
the polypeptides, the only reasonable interpretation is that SEQ ID NO:2 is
asserted to be a taste receptor, in particular, a human homolog for the mouse
T1R3 taste receptor” (Br. 8). The other information in the Specification,
including Table 3, is asserted to support this conclusion.
The Examiner challenges Appellants’ contention that Table 2 of the
Specification constitutes an assertion that SEQ ID NO: 2 is the amino acid
sequence of a taste receptor (Answer 11). The Examiner contends that the
Specification’s disclosure that the nearest GenBank homolog of SEQ ID
NO: 2 is a taste-specific receptor “[a]t best” means that the match is “not the
result of random chance,” but does not lead to the conclusion that the
polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 is itself a taste-specific receptor possessing
taste receptor activity (Answer 11). In essence, the Examiner is saying that
identifying a GenBank entry as the nearest matching homolog based on a
probability score is not the same as asserting that the polypeptide has the
activity possessed by the GenBank entry.
To support his position, the Examiner points to another sequence
disclosed in the Specification, SEQ ID NO: 5 which, unlike SEQ ID NO: 2,
is described in more detail in the Specification. Table 2 lists the mouse
olfactory receptor P2 as a GenBank homolog of SEQ ID NO: 5, but the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013