Appeal No. 2001-0288 Page 4
Application No. 08/277,031
We affirm.
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants set forth five claim groupings: I, claims 1-5 and 10-14; II, claim
6; III, claim 7; IV, claim 8; and V, claim 9. With regard to group I, since claims 1-
5 and 10-14 stand or fall together, we limit our discussion to representative
independent claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 10-14 will stand or fall together with claim
1. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
DISCUSSION
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 13 AND 14; AND CLAIMS 10 AND 12
Claim 1:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4) Crespi teaches “the
preparation of a human cell line that concurrently … expresses a set of human
cytochrome P450 species – IA2, IIEI and IIIA4 – that are ‘primarily responsible
for the activation of the major procarcinogens’.” The examiner also finds (id.)
that Crespi teaches the use of the cells to perform “‘assays designed to detect
genotoxic effects of promutagens and procarcinogens.’” The examiner further
finds (id.) that in addition to IA2, IIEI and IIIA4 Crespi teaches “that ‘it is
reasonable to expect that additional P450s may be established to have primary
responsibility for the activation of other procarcinogens’ and that further cDNAs
encoding other cytochromes P450 may be expressed in their transformed cells.”
The examiner, however, recognizes (id.) that Crespi does “not use yeast cells as
hosts for the recombinant expression of a set of human cytochromes P450
known to contribute to the metabolic conversion of procarcinogens.” In addition,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007