Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 82


                  Appeal No.  1999-2200                                                                                          
                  Application No.  08/896,063                                                                                    
                  GROUNDS OF REJECTION                                                                                           
                          Claims 28, 43-45, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                
                  unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.                                                        
                          We reverse.                                                                                            
                  The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:                                                                           
                          The examiner states (Answer62, bridging paragraph, pages 7-8) that:                                    

                                  The isolation of a cDNA encoding the human counterpart of the                                  
                          rat GluR3 subunit that was described in the Heinemann et al.                                           
                          publication by probing the cDNA library of Sun et al. or Puckett et al.,                               
                          each of which was constructed from mRNA isolated from human                                            
                          brain, with a nucleic acid probe encoding all or part of rat GluR3 in a                                
                          manner that was directly analogous to the method described by                                          
                          Puckett et al. to facilitate the recombinant expression and                                            
                          characterization of the encoded product in the absence of other                                        
                          human glutamate receptor subunits for those reasons that were                                          
                          expressly given by Sun et al. would have been prima facie obvious to                                   
                          an artisan of ordinary skill in the art of molecular biology at the time                               
                          that the instant invention was made.                                                                   
                          The examiner further states (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 8-9) that                               
                  since the GluR3A and GluR3B sequences were isolated from different cDNA                                        
                  libraries “they obviously correspond to allelic variations of the same protein and                             
                  appear to be functionally indistinguishable.”                                                                  
                  Claim 28:                                                                                                      
                          Appellants argue (Brief, pages 12-17) that the claimed GluR3 sequences                                 
                  differ from those described by the prior art.                                                                  




                                                                                                                                 
                  62 Paper No. 26, mailed February 5, 1999.                                                                      

                                                               82                                                                



Page:  Previous  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007