Appeal No. 2005-2739 Page 9
Application No. 09/966,893
Sharp discloses TANGO 176, “a family of proteins with homology to lysosomal
protective protein cathepsin A (PPCA)” (Sharp, page 27). According to Sharp, TANGO
176 “nucleic acid molecules, proteins . . . and antibodies . . . can be used in one or more
of the following methods: a) screening assays; b) detection assays . . . ; c) predictive
medicine (e.g., diagnostic assays, prognostic assays, . . . ); and d) methods of treatment
(e.g., therapeutic and prophylactic)” (id., page 76). Moreover, TANGO 176 proteins may
be expressed “in prokaryotic (e.g., E. coli) or eukaryotic cells (e.g., insect cells (using
baculovirus expression vectors), yeast cells or mammalian cells) . . . [or] transcribed and
translated in vitro, for example using T7 promoter regulatory sequences and T7
polymerase” (id., page 66).
According to the examiner, Sharp’s description of “TANGO 176 nucleic acids
which encodes PPCA which can be used to treat galactosialidosis[;] . . . methods for
production of the disclosed proteins including using insect cells[;] . . . [and]
pharmaceutical compositions of the disclosed nucleic acids and proteins” anticipates
the claimed invention (Examiner’s Answer, pages 11-12).
Appellants concede that “Sharp does generically mention the production of
proteins in insect cells when providing a [ ] list of the various forms of standard
expression vectors and host cells that may be used to produce proteins” (Appeal Brief,
page 13), but argue that “Sharp does not specifically teach the production of PPCA
(i.e. TANGO 176) in insect cell culture for the purpose of making a pharmaceutical
composition” (id.). In other words, appellants argue that the examiner has combined
disparate parts of Sharp’s disclosure to arrive at a pharmaceutical composition
comprising PPCA produced in insect cell culture and a pharmaceutically acceptable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007