Appeal No. 2001-1436 Page 5
Application No. 08/422,612
Discussion
At the outset, we commend both the examiner and Appellants’ counsel for
their efforts in briefing this case. The Examiner’s Answer and Appellants’ briefs
explain the technically complex subject matter clearly and thoroughly, and it is
clear that both sides put a lot of time and effort into making their case. On
balance, however, we conclude that the examiner’s rejections cannot be
sustained on this record.
Claim 41, the broadest claim on appeal, is directed to a yeast cell
transformed with an expression vector encoding a mammalian G protein-coupled
receptor and a control region (e.g., promoter) that is functional in the yeast cell.
Claim 41 also requires that “after expression, [the receptor] is incorporated into a
cell membrane of said yeast cell and [the receptor] is capable of binding a ligand
of said mammalian receptor.”
The examiner rejected various claims as nonenabled and as anticipated or
obvious in view of King. These rejections, however, are all related to the
rejection of all the claims (including claim 41) as obvious in view of the combined
disclosures of Dull, Kobilka, Dohlman, Lübbert, and Dietzel. We will begin our
analysis with this rejection.
The examiner cited Dull as showing “production of an expression vector
encoding a receptor protein and the employment of that expression vector to
obtain the expression of that protein in a yeast host cell to permit the
identification of compounds which can act as agonists and antagonists to that
receptor.” Examiner’s Answer, page 7. The examiner acknowledged that Dull
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007