Appeal No. 1999-0339
Application 07/903,588
genotype, but rather it encompasses the heterozygous genotype described by Bièche.
Accordingly, we find that this argument does not address a limitation present in the
claim.
The appellants argue that Bièche’s studies only indicate that one of the two
parental copies of a region of chromosome 7 was deleted in breast tumors from
patients having the LS genotype. Brief, p. 9. The appellants urge that this does not
mean that there will be a difference between levels of met RNA and Met protein in
normal and tumor tissues. We find this argument unpersuasive. We point out that
claim 1 is not limited to a method of predicting the progress of breast cancer by
comparing the abundance of met RNA and Met protein in normal and tumor breast
tissue. The claim is also directed to a method wherein the abundance of met DNA in
normal breast tissue is compared to the abundance of met DNA in tumor breast tissue.
Accordingly, the appellants’ argument does not address a limitation present in the
claims.
In view of the foregoing, Rejection I is affirmed.
II.
The examiner argues that the appellants’ method of predicting the progression of
breast cancer using antibodies specific for the Met protein (claims 2-4) would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combined teachings of Bièche
and Park.
As to the teachings of Bièche, we direct attention to our discussion above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007