Ex Parte MARULLO et al - Page 7


                Appeal No. 2001-1436                                                    Page 7                  
                Application No. 08/422,612                                                                      

                       protein-coupled receptor could be functionally expressed in S.                           
                       cerevisiae because S. cerevisiae was already known to naturally                          
                       produce G proteins and G protein-coupled receptors and because                           
                       the functional expression of other mammalian receptor proteins in                        
                       S. cerevisiae was a routine practice in the art at the time of the                       
                       instant invention.                                                                       
                Examiner’s Answer, page 10.                                                                     
                       Appellants argue that the cited references do not provide adequate                       
                motivation to combine their respective teachings in such a way as to yield the                  
                claimed invention.  See the Appeal Brief, page 39.1  Appellants focus on Dietzel,               
                and thoroughly review Dietzel’s data and conclusions.  See the Appeal Brief,                    
                pages 47-56.  Based on this review, Appellants argue that Dietzel leads away                    
                from the claimed invention, because it suggests that a mammalian G protein-                     
                coupled receptor would not be fully functional if expressed in yeast.  Appeal Brief,            
                page 56.  See also the Reply Brief, pages 3-7.                                                  
                       “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial               
                burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.”  In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d               
                1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  “The consistent criterion                   
                for determination of obviousness is whether the prior art would have suggested                  
                to one of ordinary skill in the art that this process should be carried out and would           
                have a reasonable likelihood of success, viewed in the light of the prior art.  Both            
                the suggestion and the expectation of success must be founded in the prior art,                 

                                                                                                                
                1 Appellants state that, during prosecution, they “repeatedly asserted that the cited documents do
                not provide a reasonable expectation of success.”  Appeal Brief, page 39.  However, Appellants  
                chose not to “reiterate those points in th[e] brief.”  Id.  Therefore, we consider this argument to
                have been waived for purposes of the appeal.  See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (“The brief . . . must set  
                forth the authorities and arguments on which appellant will rely to maintain the appeal.”).     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007