Appeal No. 1999-2200
Application No. 08/896,063
exon identified in the rodent clones by Sommer [‘92] … and designated as flip and
flop forms of GluR1.” So not only is there cross-reactivity between the receptors,
there is also the possibility of alternative splicing events.
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 a 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.
It is unclear from this record where the examiner finds an objective basis to
apply Grenningloh and Schofield, neither of which teaches a glutamate receptor.
Before, a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination of
references, there must have been a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an
inventor to combine those references. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
74
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007