Appeal No. 2007-0534
Application No. 10/463,016
We agree with the examiner that the present claims do not distinguish from prior
art methods of detecting protein-protein interactions. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments.
To begin, considering claim 1, Appellants define what is meant by "modulation" of
the target or active domain in the specification on pages 7-8. "Modulation" is said to
include "signal transduction, signal transduction inhibition, second messenger
production, … channel dilation, ion gate open/closure, a cellular response, a chemical
reaction, inhibition of a chemical reaction, an enzyme interaction, inhibition of an
enzyme reaction or any other measurable or detectable response." Id. Therefore,
"modulation" as broadly interpreted, and consistent with the specification, would
encompass any type of protein/protein interaction, including energy transfer between
two proteins as described in Silver. In addition, the specification, page 8, discloses that
FRET can be used to determine modulation.
In addition, the claimed method steps and components of the prior art are similar.
Appellants argue that the method of Silver is the reverse of the claimed method. We
disagree. The claims essentially recite a method including steps of (1) preparing two
fusion proteins and (2) contacting them together such that binding occurs. Then an
activity of the active domain is determined.
While Appellants argue Silver discloses a reverse order of steps, the claims only
require that the first and second fusion proteins are contacted and that binding occurs
with no specific order of binding recited. Further, since "modulation" is defined so
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013