Appeal No. 95-2041
Application 07/814,220
It would have been further obvious to enhance
the antifreeze properties of the protein by
adding additional repeat sequences as suggested
by Chakrabartty or by amino acid substitution
as suggested by Scott, since these references
as cited above indicate that the number of ice
contact points is the limiting factor in anti-
freeze activity. Thus, increasing the number
of ice contact points by the addition of AFP
repeat sequences (note the same conclusion was
admitted by appellants from a review of Chakra-
bartty (19) and Scott, see page 12, last para-
graph, ending on page 13 of the specification),
or adding ice contact points via amino acid
substitution, or using like amino acids
instead of the naturally occurring ones were
all suggested by the prior art to enhance AFP
activity and provide both the motivation and a
reasonable expectation of enhanced AFPs.
We do not agree that "adding additional repeat sequences"
is reasonably "suggested by Chakrabartty", nor that
Chakrabartty and Scott "indicate that the number of ice
contact points is the limiting factor in antifreeze activity."
The examiner argues that Chakrabartty teaches length variation
in the right hand column of page 11315. See the sentence
bridging pages 10 and 11 of the Final Rejection. We find that
Chakrabartty there refers to "analogs which vary in length" in
the context of "repeating the experiment." Chakrabartty’s
work involves analogs of 1 repeat, 2 repeats and 3 repeats.
See Table 1 of Chakrabartty on page 11314. The reference does
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007