Appeal No. 2005-0394 Page 6
Application No. 08/940,692
According to the examiner (Answer, page 5), Frost teaches that by
increasing the amount of substrate, and introducing one or more genes of the
common aromatic pathway into a cell, you can increase both the carbon flow into
the pathway, and the amount of final product obtained. In addition, the examiner
finds (Answer, page 6), “Holms teaches that PEP within E. coli is consumed by
several different metabolic pathways … and the amount of PEP channeled into
each of these pathways.” The examiner relies on Ingrahm and Saier as set forth
above.
Based on this evidence, the examiner finds (Answer, bridging paragraph,
pages 7-8),
[t]he disclosure of Saier et al. shows that it is possible to produce
cells which are deleted in the PTS system yet still retain high
growth rates on glucose…. [Thus] [i]t woud have been further
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select for such cells with
high growth rates as such cells would be expected to be most
useful for producing large amounts of aromatic amino acids. As
Saier et al. disclose Pts-/glucose+ cells with growth rates very close
to the claimed rate of at least 0.4/hr one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected to be able to obtain cells within
the scope of the claims.
What the examiner has not explained, is what in the combination of references
relied upon, would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to screen for
growth rates of at least 0.4/hr? The examiner admits (Answer, bridging
sentence, pages 7-8) that Saier’s cells “retain high growth rates on glucose.”
Therefore, why, in the absence of appellants’ disclosure, would a person of
ordinary skill in the art be motivated to screen for cells “having a specific growth
rate on glucose as a sole carbon source of at least 0.4h-1”as set forth in
appellants’ claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007