Appeal No. 2002-0796 Page 14
Application No. 09/110,994
case of obviousness. In fact, the rejection does not even address the limitation
of the use of a library wherein the peptide or protein members of the library
comprise an equal distribution of possible peptide sequences. Therefore, the
rejection as it applies to the claims of Group III, i.e., claims 7-9, is reversed.
With respect to the claims of Group IV, Appellants argue that Petrenko
only employed biopanning in order to select high affinity binding members, and
the combination does not teach or suggest the use of alternating selection
methods. Again, we agree that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
of obviousness, as, again, the rejection does not even address the limitation of
the use of alternating selection methods. Therefore the rejection is also reversed
as to the claims of Group IV, i.e., claims 14 and 15.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007