Appeal No. 1996-1038
Application 07/922,492
From the comparison of the known sequences for S1 and S2, Lin concluded that
the best region for the PCR/RFLP analysis was the N-terminus portion of S2 denoted in
Figure 2 on page 22 since this portion exhibited the greatest nucleotide variation.
Therefore, S2, and not S1, was chosen as the preferred site for the PCR/RFLP analysis.
The claims on appeal recite a method utilizing PCR/RFLP analysis of the S1 gene
of the IBV using three particular restriction endonuclease enzymes. In our view, when Lin is
viewed on its own, apart from appellants’ disclosure of the present invention, there is no
teaching or suggestion in Lin to utilize the S1 gene or the three recited restriction
endonuclease (RE) enzymes in a method for detecting IBV serotypes. In this regard, we
note that Lin uses nine specific RE enzymes for
producing restriction fragments from the S2 gene of IBV. Nowhere does Lin teach or
suggest which RE enzymes and how many would be successful in digesting the S1 gene
to differentiate IBV.
Thus, although it was known in the prior art that the S1 gene of IBV is the target of
neutralizing and hemagglutination-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies and that the S1 gene
encodes the serotype specific neutralization epitopes, Lin chose not to analyze the S1
gene by PCR/RFLP analysis. Rather, after an analysis of both the S1 and S2 genes, Lin
chose the S2 gene. It is only with the use of impermissible hindsight that Lin can be
considered to teach or suggest the use of the S1 gene or the three claimed RE enzymes in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007