Appeal No. 2005-1422 Page 3
Application No. 09/997,522
Doerks, et al. (Doerks), “Protein annotation: detective work for function
prediction,” Trends in Genetics, Vol 14, No. 6, pp. 248-250 (June 1998)
(Soukhanov), pp. 646 and 956 (A. H. Soukhanov, et al. eds., New Riverside
University Dictionary. The Riverside Publishing Co.) (1988)
Brenner, “Errors in genome annotation,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 15, No. 4, p.
132 (April 1999)
Bork et al. (Bork I), “Go hunting in sequence databases but watch out for the
traps,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 12, No. 10, pp. 425-427 (1996)
Bork (Bork II), “Powers and pitfalls in sequence analysis: the 70% hurdle,”
Genome Research, Vol. 10, pp. 398-400 (2000)
Skolnick, et al. (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 4, 5, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the
same invention as claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 57 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim
1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,869,633.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 57 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,597.
Claim 6 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,686,597.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007