Appeal No. 1999-2231
Application No. 08/278,774
which it is combined. In re Billingsley, 47 CCPA 1108, 279 F.2d
689, 126 USPQ 370; In re Mason, 44 CCPA 727, 240 F.2d 362,
112 USPQ 328. Rather, the question is whether what applicant
has done would be obvious from the references in combination.
In our opinion, on the record before us, the examiner has provided
sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the claimed subject matter would
have been prima facie obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note appellants’ emphasis (Brief, page 5) that “[a]ll the pending claims
require (1) a C-terminal propeptide, whereas the affinity handles of Carter are all
N-terminal fusions….” In response to this position, the examiner explains
(Answer, page 5) that the claims “only require that the ‘first non-natural site-
specific proteolytic agent recognition site is located between said collagen chain
and said first propeptide’, not that the affinity handle be a C-fusion.” We note
that appellants withdrew their remarks regarding this issue in the Reply Brief.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chu, Prockop and Olsen in view of Carter. As
discussed supra claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14-16 and 18 fall together with claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007