Appeal No. 1999-0339
Application 07/903,588
With respect to Park, we find that the publication discloses the nucleotide
sequence of the met proto-oncogene cDNA and the deduced amino acid sequence of
the Met protein. Park, p. 6381, Figure 2. In addition, Park discloses “Three MET-
related proteins of 110, 140, and 160 kDa can be immunoprecipitated with a MET C-
terminal anti-peptide antibody from human cell lines expressing the 9.0-kb MET RNA.”
Id., p. 6379, col. 2, lines 1-3.
According to the examiner,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to realize that the loss of the DNA locus of met would result
in the loss of the associated Met gene product. Therefore , any gross
correlations presented by Bièche et al. concerning met DNA would be readily
extendable to immunomethods using the antibodies and methods of Park et al.
[Answer, p. 8].
It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is the examiner’s responsibility to show that
some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally
available [in the art] would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This the
examiner has not done.
Here, we find that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness fails for two
reasons.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007