Appeal No. 2000-1780
Application No. 08/403,663
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner reasons (Answer67, page 4) that:
The McNamara et al. publication, taken alone, clearly placed
an isolated cDNA encoding a human GluR4 protein in the hands of an
artisan of ordinary skill at the time of the instant invention. The
isolation of that cDNA only requires an artisan to screen a cDNA
library produced from human brain mRNA with a nucleic acid probe
encoding rat GluR4 in the same manner that McNamara et al.
employed to screen the human genomic library described therein.
In the bridging paragraph of pages 4-5 of the Answer, the examiner states:
To have incorporated that cDNA into an expression vector and host
cell to obtain the expression and quantitative production of human
GluR4 and to permit the characterization of that protein at the
molecular level by employing those methods that were old and well
known in the art would have been prima facie obvious in view of this
[McNamara] reference. Further, the production of a membrane
preparation containing such a protein from a host cell to permit the
evaluation of the binding characteristics of a receptor protein was a
practice that was also old and well known at the time that the instant
invention was made.
In the bridging paragraph of pages 5-6 of the Answer, the examiner relies
upon Sommer ‘90 for the teaching that GluR1-A, -B, -C, and –D exist in one of two
(flip and flop) sequence versions.
Characterizing GluR4B as GluR-D the examiner concludes at page 6 of the
Answer, that:
Because McNamara disclosed that humans have a
GluR-D gene, as well as the location of that gene and
17, 19 and 31 --. These three claims are the only claims pending and on appeal in
this application.
67 Paper No. 17, mailed January 22, 1999.
90
Page: Previous 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007