Appeal No. 2006-2493 Page 7
Application No. 10/126,122
library in a screening assay where the mass of a library member is
used to identify a library member that binds to a target.”
In response, the examiner emphasizes (Answer, bridging paragraph,
pages 8-9) that Carell teaches screening a library of “up to 50,000 chemical
species.” While this is true, as appellants explain, the library screened by Carell
is not a mass-coded library. See e.g., Brief, page 3. As we understand it, Carell
specifically teach (page 172, first column), “[a]s our libraries were not made
sequentially on a solid support, we were unable to make use of available . . .
coding schemes . . . .” In this regard, Carell teach that their “approach trades the
speed by which compounds can be identified when tagging procedures are
employed for the broadened scope of organic reactions available in solution-
phase chemistry.” Id. Given that Carell stepped away from screening a coded
(e.g., a mass-coded library) it would appear that determining the molecular mass
of each dissociated ligand as is required by the last clause of appellants’ claimed
invention would not be useful in the method taught by Carell. While the examiner
notes (Answer, page 9) that the rejection is based on a combination of
references, Carell is the only reference relied upon by the examiner to teach a
mass-coded library. However, despite the examiner’s assertions to the contrary,
Carell does not teach the use of such a library for screening purposes and
expressly directs a person of ordinary skill in the art away from such a library in
favor of “the broadened scope of organic reactions available in solution-phase
chemistry.” Carell, page 172, first column. Therefore, the only reference relied
upon by the examiner to teach a library within the scope of appellants’ claimed
invention teaches away from the use of this library for screening purposes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007