Interference 105,004 Paper 18
DeBoer v. Gordon
heterologous proteins in ruminant milk. (Id. at ¶8.)
Dr. Meade’s statements are supported by Dr. Strijker’s
description of the Campbell & Rosen reference (JE009), that this
reference reported that the WAP promoter had a “very unusual TATA
box.” (JE005 at 4, ¶9.) Dr. Strijker’s statement that it was
well-known that mutations of a highly conserved TATA regulatory
sequence about 30 base pairs upstream from the transcription
start site resulted in “severe reduction of transcription levels”
(id. at 2, ¶6), supports his conclusion that the unusual TATA
sequence implies that either the WAP promoter was “inherently
extremely weak, and/or that the WAP promoter was regulated in a
manner not yet known and probably requiring one or more
additional sequences besides the TATA box and the CAAT region.”
(Id. at 4, ¶9.) The conclusions of Drs. Meade and Strijker are
supported by the Rosen et al. reference, published March 30, 1986
(JE010), reporting the failure to observe WAP gene expression in
the majority of transfectants analyzed. We find that the weight
of the evidence is that the WAP promoter was known to be unusual,
and that it was known that there were difficulties using it for
heterologous protein expression in mammary gland cells.
Against this background of the state of the art, we find
that, taken as prior art, DeBoer’s involved claims reciting the
use of promoters generally would not have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with a suggestion, reason, or
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007