Appeal No. 2000-1780
Application No. 08/403,663
NMDA protein used in a heteromeric receptor complex with NR3 protein of claim
15.
Where the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is
improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Accordingly we reverse the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Monyer in view of Puckett, Schofield and
Grenningloh.
The rejection of claim 21:
The examiner relies (Answer, page 10) upon Sugihara for the teaching of rat
homologs of the recited NMDAR1 variants. However, Sugihara does not make up
for the deficiencies in the combination of Monyer in view of Puckett, Schofield and
Grenningloh, supra.
Where the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is
improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Monyer in view of Puckett, Schofield and Grenningloh as
applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Sugihara.
Summary:
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
116
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007