Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 47


                  Appeal No.  2000-1780                                                                                       
                  Application No.  08/403,663                                                                                 
                         The examiner states (Answer46, page 5) that:                                                         

                         Cutting et al. clearly shows that every element of the claimed method,                               
                         except for the particular DNA employed therein, was known in the art                                 
                         in the combination claimed prior to the making of the instant invention.                             
                         To have incorporated a cDNA encoding a human glutamate receptor                                      
                         subunit like the one that was described by Puckett et al., or any                                    
                         functionally equivalent allelic variant thereof, in place of the cDNA of                             
                         Cutting et al. to permit the characterization of the human glutamate                                 
                         receptor encoded thereby would have been prima facie obvious to an                                   
                         artisan of ordinary skill in the art of molecular biology in view of this                            
                         combination of references at the time that the instant invention was                                 
                         made.                                                                                                
                         With regard to the Puckett sequence, the examiner states (Answer,     page                           
                  4):                                                                                                         
                                 Because the cDNAs encoding the glutamate receptor subunit                                    
                         of the instant invention and GluH1 of Puckett et al. were both isolated                              
                         from human brain cDNA libraries by probing those libraries with a                                    
                         DNA probe encoding part of the rat receptor subunit GluR1 and                                        
                         because the amino acid sequence encoded thereby are identical in                                     
                         898 out of 906 amino acid residues (99.1%, including signal                                          
                         sequence) it is more than reasonable to conclude that they are                                       
                         nothing more than allelic variants of the same protein and, in the                                   
                         absence of unexpected properties, either of these DNAs would have                                    
                         been prima facie obvious in view of the other at the time of the instant                             
                         invention.                                                                                           
                         The claims on appeal are drawn to “[a] method of assaying a test ligand”                             
                  using a human GluR1B (having a specific SEQ ID NO.) receptor-producing cell, or                             
                  membrane preparation.  However, it is obviously essential to the examiner’s                                 
                  rejection that a cDNA encoding the GluR1B receptor must first be successfully                               
                  isolated.  Once isolated the cDNA is used to engineer a cell to express the                                 
                  receptor, and then the claimed method can be performed.                                                     

                                                                                                                              
                  46 Paper No. 18, mailed September 23, 1996.                                                                 

                                                             47                                                               



Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007