Appeal No. 2007-0534
Application No. 10/463,016
Specification, pages 9-10 and 12.
Similarly, the prior art cited in the present case in both instances uses broad
terminology to describe protein-protein interactions. See, e.g., Hamilton, claim 1; Silver
claim 1.
In view of the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of
the prior art cited in this case, the maturity of the science or technology of protein-
protein interactions, and the predictability of the aspect at issue, in our view the claimed
invention is adequately described in the specification when read in view of the eyes of
one of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection of the claims for lack of written description is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Silver.
According to the examiner, Silver's method involves using DNA encoding a
protein of interest tagged with one member of a fluorescent protein pair and DNA
sequences encoding a plurality of proteins to be screened, wherein the screening
proteins are tagged to the other member of the fluorescent pair. Answer, page 6.
When the proteins are located physically within an appropriate distance of one another
fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) occurs between the fluorescent protein
pair. Abstract, Answer, page 6.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013