Appeal No. 95-4404
Application 07/913,121
Goff teaches that drug-resistant forms of reverse transcriptase are a serious problem in
the treatment of AIDS patients, and discloses identification and isolation of drug-resistant
variants.
The examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to have modified Konig’s method by substituting the conventional, alternative
capture and detection methods disclosed by Urdea and Holmes for Konig’s capture and
detection method for a number of reasons set forth on pages 22 through 24 of the
Examiner’s Answer. Additionally, the examiner believes that it would have been obvious to
modify Konig’s method of identifying reverse transcriptase inhibitors to identify drug-
resistant forms of reverse transcriptase instead, by performing the assay in the presence
of a known inhibitor.
Having considered the examiner’s position, we find ourselves in agreement with the
examiner that the prior art relied upon would have rendered the claimed invention obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants have not presented any arguments against the
prima facie case except to say that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion for identifying drug
resistant forms of RT as is recited in claims 8-13.” (See the Brief, page 19) . Again, we
agree with the examiner that Goff provides ample reason, suggestion or motivation for
modifying Konig’s assay to detect drug resistant forms of reverse transcriptase, and,
therefore, it would have been well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to have
-15-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007