Appeal No. 2001-0288 Page 15
Application No. 08/277,031
2B6, 2C8 or 2C18 enzymes should be combined with the 1A2, 2C9, 2E1 and
3A4 enzymes to make a yeast that is useful in a method for assaying the safety
of a chemical compound.” We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument. As
discussed supra Crespi disclose yeast expressing cytochrome P450s 1A1, 1A2,
2A3, 2E1 and 3A4. When Crespi is combined with the teachings of Sakaki,
Yasumori ‘89 and Paolini in view of Wolf, Yasumori ‘87 and Yabusaki as in the
rejection of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a method
as set forth in claim 1 wherein the recombinant yeast cells produce 1A1, 1A2,
2A3, 2C9, 2E1 and 3A4. Therefore, having found no error in the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, we find no error in the examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 7 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.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TONI R. SCHEINER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007