Appeal No. 1997-3221
Application No. 08/249,241
Puckett relied upon by the examiner (Answer, page 11) to teach isolation of
human GluR1, teaches the use of a reduced stringency hybridization (bridging
paragraph pages 7557-558). Furthermore, Puckett also teaches the existence of
alternative splicing events (page 7560, column 1), later confirmed by Sun’s “note,”
supra.
The examiner relies upon Heinemann to teach GluR3 (Answer, page 4). We
note Heinemann’s Example 8 (page 27) which teaches “cDNA clones encoding the
GluR2 and GluR3 genes were isolated from an adult rat forebrain library using a
low-stringency hybridization screening protocol … and a radiolabeled fragment of
the GluR1 cDNA as probe.”
Thus a GluR1 probe cross-reacts with GluR2 and GluR3. Thus, at the time
this invention was made, following the methodology set forth by the examiner one
would have expected a probe based on Heinemann’s GluR3 to cross-react with at
least GluR1-2.
However, given the teachings of Sun, Puckett and Heinemann, supra, of
cross-reactivity at the nucleic acid level we are of the opinion that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success in
isolating the GluR3A or GluR3B receptor. Furthermore, none of these references
teach the existence of two forms of the GluR3 receptor, GluR3A and 3B.
We do not agree with the examiner’s conclusion (Answer, bridging
paragraph, pages 8-9) that due to the library in which they were isolated the GluR3A
and GluR3B sequences “obviously correspond to allelic variations of the same
protein and appear to be functionally indistinguishable.” On this record, in the
84
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007