Appeal No. 2001-0288 Page 14
Application No. 08/277,031
cytochrome P450 IIA6 may be successfully expressed in yeast
transformants in active form and may be studied … in the
metabolism of “carcinogen activation and deactivation.”
According to the examiner (id.) “[b]oth teachings thus supply ample motivation to
utilize the recombinant expression of either cytochrome P450 in a method to
evaluate the safety of a chemical compound….” We note that the test of
obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would
have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). On this record, we find no error in the
examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 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 Ellis, Bligh and Eugster.
Claim 7:
According to appellants (Brief, page 13) “the Eugster … references [sic]
merely provide description of the 1A1 enzyme. None of these references
describe the 2B6, 2C8 or 2C18 enzymes. Therefore appellants conclude (id.)
“with respect to these three enzymes, even if the references are combined as
suggested by the [e]xaminer, the result is not the claimed invention.” However,
as the examiner explains (Answer, page 16) claim 7 recites a Markush group of
enzymes, which includes 1A1 as taught by the combination of references relied
upon.
Appellants further argue (Brief, bridging paragraph, pages 13-14) that
“none of these references provide any suggestion that one or more of the 1A1,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007