Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 73


                  Appeal No.  1997-3221                                                                                          
                  Application No.  08/249,241                                                                                    

                  concludes (Answer, page 12) that the two sequences “obviously correspond to                                    
                  allelic variations of the same protein and appear to be functionally indistinguishable.                        
                  Therefore, a DNA encoding either of these variants would have been prima facie                                 
                  obvious in light of the combination of references cited above at the time that the                             
                  instant invention was made.”                                                                                   
                  Claim 1:                                                                                                       
                          Appellants argue (Brief, pages 10) that the claimed GluR3 sequences differ                             
                  from those described by the prior art.                                                                         
                          The examiner’s rejection (Answer, page 11) finds that it would have been                               
                  prima facie obvious to isolate GluR3 from a human cDNA library by probing that                                 
                  library with a rat nucleic acid probe taught by Heinemann, using methodology of                                
                  Sun, Puckett, Schofield, and Grenningloh.                                                                      
                          Sun teaches (page 1443, Materials and Methods, column 2) that a probe                                  
                  was amplified using two PCR primers derived from GluR1.  This probe was then                                   
                  used (Sun, page 1444, bridging paragraph, columns 1-2) for ”[h]ybridization                                    
                  screening [of a human brain cDNA library] at high stringency.”  This screen yielded                            
                  four positive clones, derived from two different transcripts.  The first clone was found                       
                  to be homologous to rat GluR1, the second clone was found to be homologous to                                  
                  GluR2.  Sun, page 1444, bridging paragraph, columns 1-2.                                                       
                          At this point we find that under high stringency hybridization conditions, a                           
                  probe for GluR1 cross-reacts with GluR2.  Little more is provided in Sun, other than                           
                  the “note” at page 1447 which states “[a]fter submission of this manuscript a paper                            
                  [referring to Puckett] appeared reporting …GluH1.  This cDNA shows differences                                 
                  with HBGR1 … in a region corresponding to the alternatively spliced                                            





                                                               73                                                                



Page:  Previous  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007