Appeal No. 2005-0792 Page 2
Application No. 09/750,373
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, pp.
132-133, (1999)
Bork (Bork ’00), “Powers and Pitfalls in Sequence Analysis: The 70% Hurdle,”
Genome Reearch, Vol. 10, pp. 398-400 (2000)
Skolnick, “From Genes to Protein Structure and Function: Novel Applications of
Computational Approaches in the Genomic Era,” Trends in Biotech., Vol. 18, No.
1, pp. 34-39 (2000)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 7-10, 12-25 and 29-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
lacking utility and § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement based on the
finding of lack of utility.
We affirm.
CLAIM GROUPING
The claims stand or fall together. Brief, page 2. Since all claims stand or
fall together, we limit our discussion to representative independent claim 25.
Claims 1, 7-10, 12-24 and 29-33 will stand or fall together with claim 25. In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
BACKGROUND
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), “[a]ppellants disclose in the
specification that the claimed receptor is believed to be a G protein-coupled
receptor.” As set forth in the specification (page 1), G protein-coupled receptors
“form a vast superfamily of cell surface receptors which … bind a variety of
ligands … and are important in the normal (and sometimes the aberrant) function
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007