Appeal No. 94-1573 Paper No. 24
Application No. 07/552,744 Page 8
35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants request independent consideration of each of
claims 1-7 for § 103 rejection over King, Smith, Vasanthakumar
II, Marsh, and Remy (Paper No. 14 at 30). The examiner
recognizes that King does not teach expression of the cDNA it
describes but notes King's statement that "[i]f this protein
could be expressed in some convenient host, there are totally
non-homologous regions in the P. falciparum enzyme which could
be used as potential drug therapy targets" (King at 10480).
The examiner found King's statement to provide ample
motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to
look to the prior art for a suitable host for expression
(Paper No. 15 (Ex. Ans.) at 4-5).
The Smith, Vasanthakumar II, Marsh, and Remy references
describe expression of parasitic enzymes, including P.
falciparum HGPRT (Vasanthakumar II), in E. coli. Based on
these references, the examiner finds that one skilled in the
art would have been motivated to select E. coli as a suitable
host for expression of the P. falciparum HGPRT cDNA described
by King.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007