Appeal No. 95-2613
Application 07/876,794
skilled in the art). Thus, we hold that it would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
produce a human gonadotropin by transforming a regulated
secretory granule-containing animal cell with an expression
vector capable of expressing a DNA sequence encoding said
gonadotropin.
After a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 has been established, the burden of going forward shifts
to the appellant. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In response, the appellant
can submit objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
evidence of unexpected results. In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 749,
34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the case before us,
the appellant relies on the teachings on pp. 14-16 the
specification with respect to the expression of FSH in GH3
cells and a declaration of Dr. Boime (Paper Nos. 8 and 12),
which shows a difference in the glycosylation and sulfation of
LH when expressed in GH cells as compared to CHO cells.
3
Declaration, paras. 3 and 4. The appellant argues that (i)
the specification data show that FSH is properly processed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007