Appeal No. 2001-1580 Page 4
Application No. 08/955,090
locations in the rearranged sequence. The examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious
in view of Pastan, Lyman, and Hannum.1 The examiner characterized Pastan as
teaching “fusion proteins comprising circularly permuted ligands . . . wherein the
amino and carboxy ends are joined together, optionally through a linker, and new
amino and carboxy terminal ends are formed at a different location within the
ligand.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The examiner also cited Pastan as
teaching that the disclosed method can be applied to growth factors, and that
preferred opening sites will be located in regions that do not show a
highly regular three-dimensional structure. Thus, it is preferred that
opening sites be selected in regions of the protein that do not show
secondary structure such as alpha helices, pleated sheets, αβ
barrel structure, and the like.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-5. The examiner acknowledged that Pastan does
not teach or suggest a circularly permuted flt3 ligand. Id., page 5.
The examiner cited Lyman as teaching the flt3 ligand, its usefulness in
“peripheral blood progenitor or stem cell transplantation procedures,” and the
advantages of soluble flt3 ligand. Examiner’s Answer, page 5. She cited
Hannum as disclosing a more detailed structural analysis of the flt3 ligand,
including its amino acid sequence (showing that SEQ ID NO:144 terminates prior
to the transmembrane domain) and the predicted locations of α helices and β
sheets.
1 The examiner also cited Chaudhary and Gearing in the statement of the rejection. In the
explanation of the rejection, however, it is clear that Chaudhary and Gearing are relevant only to
the linker sequence that may be used to join the native N- and C-termini. Thus, although
Chaudhary and Gearing are relevant to the obviousness of certain dependent claims, they are not
required for the prima facie case with respect to claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007