Appeal No. 2006-2493 Page 4
Application No. 10/126,122
(Answer, page 5), Hsieh “does not teach contacting biomolecule-ligand
complexes with a second ligand to form biomolecule-second ligand
complexes, followed by separation of ligand from those complexes,” as is
required by appellants’ claim 1, steps (c) and (d). To make up for this
deficiency, the examiner relies on Jindal and Carell.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 5), Jindal
teaches methods for screening libraries of peptides or small
molecules which are ligands for a target . . . wherein members
of a library are allowed to bind to a target, unbound members
are separated from a complex by SEC [(size exclusion
chromotagraphy)], then the ‘isolated’ complex is contacted
with a second ligand such that target-second ligand
complexes form and the library member-ligand is released . . .
.”
In addition, the examiner finds (id.), Carell “teaches synthesis of a peptide
combinatorial library for use in screening wherein building blocks for the
library are chosen such that ‘nearly all’ the compounds would possess a
unique molecular weight . . . .” While the examiner recognizes (Answer,
page 6) that Carrell does not teach “a library of at least 250 compounds
(combinations) wherein at least 90% have a distinct molecular weight,” the
examiner reasons (id.),
the combined teachings of C[arell] for various library sizes,
and specifically for a library of over 50,000 different molecules
and his teaching for using a computer program to choose
“combinations” of building blocks to provide a library wherein
“nearly all” the members have a unique molecular weight
suggests a library with over 250 compounds wherein “nearly
all”, or over 90% have a distinct molecular weight/mass.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007