Appeal No. 2004-2314 Page 2
Application No. 09/971,101
Claim 26 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
26. An isolated and purified polypeptide comprising at least 10 contiguous
amino acids of SEQ ID NO:2 or SEQ ID NO:4.
Claims 27-31 depend from and further limit claim 26 by requiring that the
polypeptide comprise at least 20 (claim 27), 30 (claim 28), 40 (claim 29), 75
(claim 30) or 100 (claim 31) contiguous amino acids of SEQ ID NO:2 or SEQ ID
NO:4.
While the examiner states (Answer, page 3), “[n]o prior art is relied upon
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims under appeal,” the examiner relies
on the following reference:
Ngo et aI. (Ngo), Computational Complexity, Protein Structure Prediction, and
the Levinthai Paradox, in The Protein Folding Problem and Tertiary Structure
Prediction, pp. 433 and 492-495 (Merz et al., eds, Birkhauser, Boston, MA)
(1994) 3
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 26-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the
specification fails to adequately describe the claimed invention.
Claims 26-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the scope of the
claimed invention.
3 Appellants’ Brief provides arguments addressing the Ngo reference. See e.g., Brief, pages 13
and 15. Accordingly, we have considered the Ngo reference and the arguments presented for
and against the patentability of the claimed invention based on the application of this reference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007