Appeal No.: 1996-1307 Paper No. 34
Application No.: 08/038,072 Page 4
In the context of Appellants' claims, we find that $2
adrenergic receptor protein kinase-induced phosphorylation is
phosphorylation of the receptor induced specifically by $ar
kinase. Appellants describe (Paper No. 1 at 1:25-2:12) $ar
kinase, as do Lefkowitz (at 4995) and Huganir (at 475). $ar
kinase appears to phosphorylate a particular portion of $ AR
2
that differs from the portions phosphorylated by other kinases
(Huganir at 474 and 475 (Fig. 4)).
Lefkowitz and Huganir would have suggested to one skilled
in the art that an agent capable of inhibiting $ar kinase or
$ar
kinase induced phosphorylation would inhibit desensitization.
Neither reference, however, teaches such an agent.
The examiner relies on a portion of the Appellants'
disclosure that refers to three references (Blackshear,
Middleton, and Hannun) that teach inhibitors of protein C
kinase and cAMP-dependent kinase (See Blackshear at 2957 ,
Middleton at 56, and Hannun at 243). The examiner has not
shown where these references teach an agent that inhibits $ar
kinase or $ar kinase induced phosphorylation. Absent such
showing, we do not find that the cited disclosure is an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007