Ex Parte Yu et al - Page 12


             Appeal No. 2004-1761                                                  Page 12                     
             Application No. 10/044,807                                                                        

             specific protein, with any specific and substantial function, to which the instant protein,       
             as set forth by SEQ ID NO:2, is homologous.”  Id.  According to the examiner’s                    
             sequence comparisons, “[s]equence searches showed no consistent homology for the                  
             full-length SEQ ID NO:2 with metalloproteases.”  Id.  The examiner cited three PCT                
             patent applications as disclosing sequences having high degrees of homology with SEQ              
             ID NO:2 but no disclosed function.  See id., page 5-6.  The examiner concluded that “a            
             specific and substantial or well-established utility for the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:2           
             cannot be deduced based on homology to known proteins.”  Id., page 6.                             
                   Appellants argue that the protein encoded by the claimed nucleic acids would be             
             accepted as proteases by those skilled in the art, because                                        
                   two sequences sharing nearly 100% identity at the protein level over an                     
                   extended region of the claimed sequence are present in the leading                          
                   scientific repository for biological sequence data (GenBank), and have                      
                   been annotated by third party scientists wholly unaffiliated with Appellants                
                   as “Homo sapiens ADAMTS-like 1” variants 1 and 2. . . .  [T]here can be                     
                   no question that those skilled in the art would clearly believe that                        
                   Appellants’ sequence is an ADAMS-like protease, and would thus readily                      
                   understand the utility of the presently claimed sequence.                                   
             Appeal Brief, page 13.                                                                            
                   We do not agree that the similarity of the protein encoded by the claimed nucleic           
             acids to known proteins establishes its utility.  As the examiner pointed out, the                
             specification discloses that the encoded protein share sequence similarity with a variety         
             of proteins, having different biological functions and activities.  Granted, most of the          
             similar proteins are proteases, but the specification admits that proteases are involved          
             in a variety of diverse biological functions (see page 1, lines 25-31) and no specific            
             function is disclosed for the encoded protein.                                                    






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007