Appeal No. 1996-2210
Application 08/129,722
(2) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 23 through 26 under 35
U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Ausubel and Laroche.
On consideration of the record, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6
through 17, and 22. However, we reverse the rejection of claims 23 through 26.
DISCUSSION
In their Appeal Brief, applicants do not argue the patentability of claims 2
through 4, 6 through 17, and 22 separately from claim 1. Accordingly, for the purposes of
this appeal, we shall treat claims 2 through 4, 6 through 17, and 22 as standing or falling
together with claim 1.
For the reasons succinctly stated by the examiner (Examiner=s Answer, Paper No.
21, paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4), we conclude that the subject matter sought to be
patented in claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious in view of Ausubel. It would have
been prima facie obvious to produce a fusion protein of a desired eukaryotic protein and
glutathione-S-transferase (GST), using a baculovirus promoter in a baculovirus system, to
exploit the known advantages of that system and, simultaneously, to permit easy isolation
of the desired protein using glutathione-agarose beads.
Applicants rely on results presented in their specification, particularly page 17, lines
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007