Appeal No. 2006-0381 Page 4
Application No. 09/729,133
We agree with the examiner that the cited references would have suggested
bubble-making solutions comprising A. victoria GFP to a person of ordinary skill in the
art. Those skilled in the art would have recognized that chemiluminescence and
bioluminescence are alternative means of generating light. In addition, as noted by the
examiner, Prasher teaches that A. victoria GFP is stable to (i.e., retains its activity in the
presence of) chemical denaturants. In the recombinant protein field, surfactants are
recognized as protein-denaturing agents. Thus, the teachings of the references would
have suggested the substitution of A. victoria GFP – a bioluminescent protein that is
stable in the presence of surfactants – for the chemiluminescent agent used by
Halbritter.
Appellant argues that Prasher does not provide “explicit or implicit support” for
the examiner’s statement that A. victoria GFP is stable in the presence of surfactants.
Appeal Brief, page 4.
This argument is not persuasive. As noted above, surfactants – which are also
known as detergents or soaps – are well-known protein denaturing agents. Halbritter
teaches that “bubble blowing involves dipping a ring-shaped article into a liquid soap
solution.” Col. 1, lines 13-15. See also column 2, lines 45-55: “Suitable bubble blowing
solutions may include anionic, cationic, non-ionic and ampholytic surfactants. . . .
Solutions containing conventional surfactants, such as sodium laureth sulfate or
ammonium laureth sulfate may be utilized.” We agree with the examiner that the class
of “chemical denaturants” described by Prasher would have been recognized by those
skilled in the art as including the surfactants described by Halbritter as a necessary
component of bubble-making solutions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007