Appeal No. 2003-0835 Page 7
Application No. 09/419,371
Appellants argue that “the phrase ‘CREB/CREM/ATF-1 subfamily member’
is a term routinely used by the skilled artisan to refer to CREB, CREM and ATF-1
proteins” which “have been shown . . . to be functionally related.” See Appeal
Brief, page 10. Appellants argue further that “the specification teaches that
CREB/CREM/ATF-1 subfamily members include mammalian CREB, mammalian
CREM and mammalian ATF-1.” Id. at 10-11.
In response, the examiner argues that “the specification has not
adequately described these genera in sufficient form that the artisan can readily
identify and/or describe the genus members, as . . . no definitive or functional
features are delineated.” Examiner’s Answer, page 12. The examiner also
asserts that “only specific teachings of dCREBa activation and dCREB2b
repression have been shown to affect learning and memory in Drosophila.” Id.
On page 16 of the specification, appellants discuss the mammalian
CREB/ATF family of protein, citing numerous references. In addition, the
specification teaches, again citing several references, that the mammalian CREB
and CREM genes are remarkably similar to one another, see id. at 14, and also
teaches that dCREB2 is a member of the cAMP-responsive CREB/CREM/ATF-1
subfamily of the CREB/ATF family, see id. at 12. The specification thus
demonstrates, as argued by appellants, that the phrase “CREB/CREM/ATF-1
subfamily member” is a term routinely used by the skilled artisan to refer to
CREB/CREM and ATF-1 proteins. The specification thus provides adequate
written description support for the phrase CREB/CREM/ATF-1 subfamily
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007