Appeal No. 2001-2500
Application No. 08/590,729
advantage of the disclosed method is that “tRNAs with modified amino acids (for
example, amino acids with covalently attached fluorophores) can be incorporated
into nascent peptide chains.” Page 393. This statement would have provided
those skilled in the art with both the motivation to modify the disclosed method
and a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
We conclude that Kudlicki and Picking render the method of claim 1 prima
facie obvious. Appellants have neither rebutted the prima facie case nor shown
objective evidence of nonobviousness. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 5 -9 fall with claim 1.
2. The rejection of claims 2-4.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and add the requirement that the
fluorescent label is added to the N-terminus of the protein, i.e., the label is on the
initiator tRNA. The examiner rejected claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
obvious over the combined teachings of Kudlicki, Picking, Hildenbrand, and
Stryer.
The examiner relied on Kudlicki and Picking for the same teachings
discussed in detail above. In addition, the examiner cited Hildenbrand as
teaching fluorescence labeling of the N-terminal methionine of a protein, and he
cited Stryer as teaching that “protein synthesis in bacteria is only initiated by
formylmethionyl-tRNA (fMet-tRNAf) and that the formylmethionine (fMet) is the N-
terminal residue of a nascent peptide.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. He also
noted that Picking teaches that one of the coumarin-labeled synthetic alanyl-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007