Appeal No. 1996-2431
Application 08/008,186
There are five rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and each is founded on the
combination of Channabasavaiah and Bajusz. We view the examiner’s proposed
combination of these two references as the dispositive issue in each of the rejections.
Channabasavaiah discloses a number of agonist and antagonist analogs of LHRH,
6
including “[DLys(Chlorambucil) ]-LRH,” wherein the amino acid at position six of the native
decapeptide is replaced by D-Lys, and the D-Lys is conjugated in turn to the alkylating
2 6
agent, chlorambucil (Chl); and “[Dphe ,DLys(Chlorambucil) ]-LRH,” wherein the amino acid
at position two is additionally replaced by D-Phe. According to the examiner,
“Channabasavaiah does not expressly teach other alkylating agents such as D-Mel as
claimed.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5.
Bajusz teaches that “highly potent alkylating analogues of LH-RH” were obtained
when “the D enantiomer of Mel was incorporated into position 6 of the native hormone and
6
some of its antagonistic analogues.” In addition, “[D-Mel ]LH-RH . . . showed high affinities
for the membrane receptors of . . . human breast cancer cells, human prostate cancer cells,
and rat Dunning R-3327 prostate tumor cells” and “exerted cytotoxic effects on human and
rat mammary cancer cells in vitro.” Abstract.
The examiner believes that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the alkylating agent, Chl in the
peptide sequence of Channabasavaiah with another alkylating agent [such] as D-Mel such
that a peptide with high affinity to cancer receptor cells is obtained as per the teachings of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007