Appeal No. 2006-2493 Page 6
Application No. 10/126,122
Screening libraries, which are not mass encoded and which are
used to screen for a member having activity against a target; model
libraries, which are used to evaluate a synthetic reaction used to
make a screening library; and sublibraries which are not mass
encoded and which are used to identify active members of a
screening library.
Of these three libraries, appellants point out (id.), the “model libraries” are the
only library taught by Carell that is “mass-coded.” According to appellants (id.,
footnote 2),
[w]hile Carell notes that nearly all of the compounds produced in
the model libraries would possess a unique molecular weight, these
libraries do not meet the requirements of the claims for at least two
reasons: First, they do not contain at least 250 members, and
second, they are not used in a screening assay, i.e., contacted with
a target.
In this regard, appellants assert (Brief, page 4), Carell’s “mass-encoded library is
used only for one purpose, evaluation of the efficacy of the synthetic reactions
used to make the screening library.” According to appellants (id.), “[t]here is no
suggestion of using the model library to screen for ligands that bind to a target
molecule as recited in the pending claims.” In this regard, appellants assert (id.,
emphasis removed), “Carell never suggests the use of mass encoding to
elucidate the structure of the screening library member having the desired activity
[see e.g., appellants’ claim 1, step (e)]. In stark contrast, identification of such
library members is done with the synthesis and evaluation of sublibraries.” In all,
appellants argue (Brief, bridging paragraph, pages 4-5, emphasis removed) that
Carell’s
model libraries are merely a tool for analyzing the efficiency of the
synthetic reactions. Carell suggest no other use for them. More
specifically, Carell makes no suggestion to use a mass encoded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007