Appeal No. 2004-1040 Page 2
Application No. 09/770,643
The examiner relies on the following references:
Bork, (Bork I), “Go hunting in sequence databases but watch out for the traps,” Trends
in Genetics, Vol. 12, No. 10, pp. 425-427 (1996)
Smith et al. (Smith), “The challenges of genome sequence annotation or ‘the devil is in
the details,’” Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15, pp. 1222-1223, (1997)
Doerks et al. (Doerks), “Protein annotation: detective work for function prediction,”
Trends in Genetics, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp.248-250 (1998)
Brenner, “Errors in genome annotation,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 15, No. 4, p.132-133,
(1999)
Bork, (Bork II), “Powers and pitfalls in sequence analysis: the 70% hurdle,” Genome
Research, Vol. 10, pp. 398-400 (2000)
Skolnick et al. (Skolnick), “From genes to protein structure and function: novel
applications of computational approaches in the genomic era,” Trends in Biotechnology,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.34-39 (2000)
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first
paragraph, as lacking patentable utility.
We affirm.
Technical Background
The specification discloses “polynucleotides encoding human proteins (referred
to generically as ‘novel human proteins’ or NHPs) that share sequence similarity with
animal neurexin proteins and contactin associated proteins.” Page 1. See also page
15: “The described sequences share limited structural similarity with a variety of
proteins, including, but not limited to, neurexins (including secreted types) and contactin
associated proteins.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007