Appeal No. 1999-2231
Application No. 08/278,774
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3) Chu and Prockop “teach the
human proI1(I) procollagen and the N and C propeptides (see Fig. 3 in each).”
The examiner relies on Olsen (Answer, page 3) to “teachthe C-terminal
propeptide of type I procollagen.” The examiner relies on Carter (Answer, page
3) to teach “that a gene can be fused so as to produce fusion proteins and that
these fusion proteins can be specifically cleaved using various chemical and
enzymatic means (see Table I).”
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to make a fusion protein that consisted of collagen and
either the N or C-terminal propeptide, as taught in the
primary references, using the methods taught in Carter, et.
al. … Whether or not a non-natural amino acid was used
and which specific cleavage site and agent was used would
have been obvious and well within the skill level of the
ordinary artisan, absent unexpected results.
We note that appellants do not discuss Chu, Prockop or Olsen, beyond
stating (Brief, page 4) that “[t]o the extent that these references are cited to show
that procollagens, including their natural propeptide terminal portions are known
in the art, Appellants concur.” Instead, appellants focus their argument on the
teachings of Carter.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-16 and 18:
According to appellants (Brief, page 4) “procollagens already have fused
propeptides and cleavage sites that enhance proper expression: nowhere does
Carter suggest or motivate replacing a native propeptide with a different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007