Appeal No. 2001-0690
Application No. 08/309,315
reasonable likelihood of success in predicting the combination of tyrosine protein
kinase inhibitors with DNA damaging agents.”
The examiner does not specifically address appellants’ argument.
Instead, the examiner argues (Answer, page 4) “[t]he references detail that the
inhibition of protein kinases adversely affects the cells’ multiplication and growth
and in doing so has a synergistic effect when used in combination with DNA
damaging agents.” We note the examiner’s reference to “protein kinases” and
not to “protein tyrosine kinases” which is, inter alia, the subject matter of
appellants’ claimed invention. This distinction is more pronounced in the
examiner’s argument (id.) that “PTK’s [protein tyrosine kinases] (e.g. the Src-
family), as with the protein kinases targeted in Margolis and Akinaga, are
instrumental in the proliferation of cells” [emphasis added].
Therefore, instead of identifying precisely where his supporting references
teach protein tyrosine kinases, the examiner enters into a discussion of the
involvement of protein tyrosine kinases in cell proliferation, and attempts to
connect this discussion with the teachings of Margolis and Akinaga. However,
as appellants point out (Brief, page 11) protein kinase C, the subject matter of
Akinaga, is not a protein tyrosine kinase; protein kinase C is a serine/threonine
protein kinase. With regard to Margolis, appellants point out (Brief, page 12) that
“there is no evidence of record to suggest that … [2-aminopurine and 6-
dimethylaminopurine] are tyrosine protein kinase inhibitors.”
On this record, the examiner failed to provide the factual evidence
necessary to establish a nexus between protein tyrosine kinase inhibitors and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007