Appeal No. 2000-2269 Page 8
Application No. 08/862,337
evidence, and the resultant finding, that the claimed invention would or would not
have been obvious, is to be made in such light. . . . [A] final finding of
obviousness may of course be reached, but such finding will rest upon evaluation
of all facts in evidence, uninfluenced by any earlier conclusion reached . . . upon
a different record.” In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976).
2. The rejection over Gold and Bock
In addition to rejecting all of the claims over the Gold references, the
examiner also rejected all of the claims as obvious over either Gold references
combined with Bock. Again, the examiner’s rejection fails to address the
particular limitations of any specific claim, but Bock is purportedly cited “[w]ith
regard to Kd values and to identification of inhibitors.” Examiner’s Answer, page
5. The examiner characterizes Bock as “teach[ing] that selection techniques can
[be] applied using nucleic acids and identifying aptamers with affinities of 25-200
nM (abstract). Bock also teaches that these selected nucleic acid aptamers can
inhibit enzyme function . . . by binding a specific site on the protein.” Id., pages
5-6. The examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize
the method of Gold to identify aptamers as suggested by Bock since Bock states
‘The chemical nature, size and mode of isolation of aptamers may sometimes
offer advantages over existing antibody technology.’” Id., page 6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007