Appeal No. 2005-0792 Page 4
Application No. 09/750,373
post-traumatic-stress disorder, depression, bipolar disorder,
delirium, dementia, severe mental retardation; dyskinesias, such as
Huntington’s disease or Tourette’s Syndrome; attention disorders
including ADD and ADHD, and degenerative disorders such as
Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s; movement disorders, including ataxias,
supranuclear palsy, etc.); among others.
According to the specification (page 14), the claimed nucleic acid molecule is
useful for recombinantly expressing the receptor and also for
detecting expression of the receptor in cells … in the design of
antisense and other molecules for the suppression of the
expression of nGPCR-[1007] in a cultured cell, a tissue, or an
animal; for therapeutic purposes; or to provide a model for diseases
or conditions characterized by aberrant nGPCR-[1007] expression.
In addition, the specification discloses (page 17), “[p]olynucleotides of the
invention may also provide a basis for diagnostic methods useful for identifying a
genetic alteration(s) in a nGPCR-x locus that underlies a disease state or states,
which information is useful both for diagnosis and for selection of therapeutic
strategies.”
DISCUSSION
The examiner rejected all of the claims as lacking patentable utility.3 The
examiner bears the initial burden of showing that a claimed invention lacks
3 The examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
However the rejection for nonenablement was presented simply as a corollary of the finding of
lack of utility. See Answer, page 5. Therefore, although we discuss only the § 101 rejection, our
conclusion also applies to the § 112 rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007