Appeal No. 2001-0288 Page 9
Application No. 08/277,031
compound.” In addition, the examiner points out (id.) that the results relied upon
in the specification are from yeast transformed with a single mammalian
cytochrome P450, which is substantially different from the yeast transformants
claimed, and taught by the combination of prior art relied on, that “require the
simultaneous expression of at least four mammalian cytochromes P450.”
Accordingly, on this record, appellants failed to meet their burden.
On reflection, we find no error in the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As
discussed supra claims 2-5 and 10-14 fall together with claim 1. We note that
appellants grouped claims 10 and 12 together with claims 2-5, 11, 13 and 14,
which as explained above fall together with claim 1. Under these circumstances
we find it unnecessary to enter into a discussion of Crespi, Sakaki, Yasumori ‘89
and Paolini in view of Wolf, Yasumori ‘87 and Yabusaki and further in view of
Renaud.
Accordingly we affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 11, 13 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crespi, Sakaki, Yasumori ‘89 and
Paolini in view of Wolf, Yasumori ‘87 and Yabusaki; and the rejection of claims
10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crespi, Sakaki,
Yasumori ‘89 and Paolini in view of Wolf, Yasumori ‘87 and Yabusaki and further
in view of Renaud.
Claim 8:
According to appellants (Brief, page 14) “[t]he invention of claim 8 is a
fusion protein between human cytochrome P450 3A4 and a yeast cytochrome
P450 reductase.” In addition, appellants recognize (id.) that Crespi “discloses
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007