Appeal No. 2002-0796 Page 2
Application No. 09/110,994
separating from the library members of the library which have an affinity
for the ligand which is greater than the affinity possessed by other members of
the library for the ligand,
determining the nucleic acid sequences which encode the members which
have been separated from the library and translating these nucleic acid
sequences into peptide sequences, and
identifying protein(s) which contain a portion of the translated peptide
sequences or which correspond to consensus peptide sequences derived from
statistical analysis of said translated library member peptide sequences.
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Ivanenkov et al. (Ivanenkov) “Characterization of S-100b binding Epitopes,”
The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 270, No. 24, pp. 14651-14658 (1995)
Petrenko et al. (Petrenko) “A library of Organic Landscapes on Filamentous
Phage,” Protein Engineering, Vol. 9, No.9 pp. 797-801 (1996)
Sparks et al. (Sparks) “Cloning of Ligand Targets: Systematic isolation of SH3
Domain-Containing proteins,” Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 14, pp. 741-744 (1996)
Claims 1-181 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Petrenko and Ivanenkov or Sparks. After careful review
of the record and consideration of the issue before us, we affirm the rejection as
to claims 1, 2, 4-5, 10-13 and 16-18, but reverse as to claims 3, 6-9, 14 and 15.
1 We note that the Examiner’s Answer states that claims 1-15 are subject to the
rejection, but does not mention claims 16-18. As appellants state that claims 1-
18 are subject to the rejection, and as the Advisory Action refers to rejected
claims 1-18, see Paper No. 14, we are treating the reference to 15 as a
typographical error, and the rejection has been reviewed as it pertains to all of
the pending claims, i.e., claims 1-18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007