Appeal No. 2001-1436 Page 6
Application No. 08/422,612
does not exactly disclose the claimed yeast cells because Dull teaches
“expression of chimeric receptors having a single extracellular domain, a single
transmembrane domain and a single cytoplasmic domain whereas the instant
claims require a vector encoding a G protein-coupled receptor.” Id., page 8.
The examiner cited Kobilka, Dohlman, and Lübbert as “show[ing] that
isolated DNAs encoding the G protein-coupled receptors of the instant invention
were known and used in the art prior to the filing of the instant application.” Id.
Finally, he cited Dietzel as providing “three critical elements” that supported a
reasonable expectation of success. The examiner cited Dietzel as showing
(1) that yeast pheromone receptors are very similar to mammalian G protein-
coupled receptors, (2) that expression of mammalian proteins in yeast cells was
routine in the art at the time the instant application was filed, and (3) that a rat Gα
subunit functionally interacted with “the endogenous mating factor receptor of the
host cell as well as the S. cerevisiae Gβ and Gγ subunits and/or downstream
effectors.” Examiner’s Answer, pages 8-9.
The examiner concluded that
[g]iven the well known ease with which S. cerevisiae is propagated
and genetically manipulated relative to mammalian cells, as
demonstrated by Dietzel et al., an artisan would have found it prima
facie obvious to have incorporated an expression vector encoding a
mammalian G protein-coupled receptor such as any one of those
that were described in the Kobilka et al., Dohlman et al. and
Lübbert et al. publications into S. cerevisiae to permit the
identification of agonists and antagonists thereto as taught [by] Dull
et al. in the absence of other mammalian receptors. That artisan
had more than a reasonable expectation that a mammalian G
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007