Appeal No. 2002-0796 Page 8
Application No. 09/110,994
naturally occurring proteins that possess similar sequences to the consensus
sequence(s) found by screening the random phage library. Moreover, as noted
in the “Background of the Invention” as set forth in the instant specification, it was
known that a drug or toxin expresses its activity by binding to proteins, and that a
drug may bind to a protein other than its desired target, which may give rise to
unexpected or undesired side effects or toxicities. Thus, using the consensus
sequence found by screening the phage display library as taught by Petrenko to
screen a GenBank library as taught by Ivanenkov would allow one to determine
potential biological targets and potential unexpected sources of interaction and/or
toxicities. Therefore, the rejection is affirmed as to the rejection over the claims
of Group I, i.e., claims 1, 2, 4-5, 10-13 and 16-18.
Appellants argue that the Petrenko reference is drawn to identifying phage
with certain characteristics drawn from their “surface landscape,” and the
reference does not attempt to determine the identity of a protein upon any
putative consensus sequence they determined using the screening process.
Appellants argue that Ivanenkov and Sparks are not combinable with Petrenko
as they deal with potential protein-protein interaction, and “nowhere . . . do
Ivanenkov or Sparks suggest that such an approach could be used for the
identification of a protein which binds to a ligand other than a nucleic acid,
peptide or protein and which has a molecular weight less than 5,000 daltons as
required by claim 1.” Appeal Brief, pages 4-5. Appellants argue further that the
ConA example of Petrenko is not relevant to the present claims, as that involves
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007