Ex Parte Bryan - Page 5


               Appeal No. 2006-0381                                                                       Page 5                  
               Application No. 09/729,133                                                                                         

                      Appellant also argues that bioluminescent systems and chemiluminescent                                      
               systems are distinct:                                                                                              
                      Often substances present in a chemiluminescent system are incompatible                                      
                      with the bioluminescent fluorescent proteins of bioluminescent systems.                                     
                      For example, the Halbritter ‘631 reference teaches that “the preferred                                      
                      chemiluminescent agent includes an oxalate diester which reacts with a                                      
                      peroxide and a fluorescer to provide the emission of light.” . . . When                                     
                      peroxide contacts a bioluminescent component, such as a fluorescent                                         
                      protein, it destroys the coelenterazine necessary to allow the                                              
                      bioluminescent reaction to take place by destroying the oxygen.                                             
                      Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not replace the chemiluminescent                                  
                      system of Halbritter ‘631 with a bioluminescent fluorescent protein.                                        
               Appeal Brief, page 5.                                                                                              
                      We find this argument unpersuasive, for the reasons discussed on pages 11-15                                
               of the Examiner’s Answer.  To summarize, unlike luciferase, GFP does not require                                   
               oxygen and a substrate (e.g., coelenterazine) to generate light.  See the specification at                         
               page 36 (“The native [aequorin] protein contains oxygen and a heterocyclic compound                                
               coelenterazine, a luciferin, . . . bound thereto. . . . Upon addition of trace amounts Ca2+                        
               . . . , it undergoes a conformational change th[at] catalyzes the oxidation of the bound                           
               coelenterazine using the protein-bound oxygen.  Energy from this oxidation is released                             
               as a flash of blue light.”) and page 59 (“GFPs are activated by blue light to emit green                           
               light and thus may be used in the absence of luciferase and in conjunction with an                                 
               external light source.”).                                                                                          
                      In addition, the basis of the rejection is not that it would be obvious to add the                          
               A. victoria GFP to the chemiluminescent system described by Halbritter; there would be                             
               no need for A. victoria GFP in the bubble-making solution if the chemiluminescent                                  
               system were retained.  The examiner’s rejection is based on the obviousness of                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007