Appeal No. 1995-4370
Application 07/401,432
According to the examiner, Brugger, Riniker, Orlowski I, Sakakibara, Orlowski II,
Rittel I and Rittel II disclose calcitonin analogs which differ from the claimed analogs in that
the claimed analogs have “an amide bridge at positions one and six of the peptide
sequence as opposed to the disulfide bridge of each of the above-cited prior art,” while
“Fujii discloses that a peptide sequence having an amide linkage has a considerably
improved stability as compared to the unstable disulfide bridge.” See page 5 of the
Answer.
The examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the disulfide bridge in anyone
of the peptide sequences of e.g., Brugger with an amide linkage for the advantages taught
by Fujii.” See page 5 of the Answer.
In our judgment, the combined disclosures of the references are insufficient to reach
the subject matter on appeal. None of the references discloses an analog with the amino
acid sequence required by the claims. The statement of the rejection does not
acknowledge this fact, much less provide reasons why one skilled in the art would have
found it obvious to modify the amino acid sequences of the prior art analogs to
arrive at the present analogs. Further, Fujii discloses a number of calcitonin analogs with
amide bridges, but there is nothing in the reference, or in the examiner’s reasoning, which
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007