Appeal No. 2007-0534
Application No. 10/463,016
polypeptide linked to a second GFP fragment, allowing the first fusion protein to
associate with the second fusion protein to form a complex mediated by non-covalent
association of the known polypeptide and test polypeptide and detecting whether
association between the first and second GFP fragments occurs. Answer, page 7;
Hamilton, col. 6, ll 45-65.
The examiner argues it would have been obvious that the protein-protein
interaction in Hamilton is the same as the claimed modulation effect because the
protein-protein interactions result in a modifying effect of one protein by the other
protein. Answer, page 8.
Appellants again argue that in Hamilton (and Silver) it is critically important that
the interaction of the test and known polypeptide occurs first and subsequently triggers
signal generation from the detection system, in the case of Hamilton, the two GFP
fragments. Appellants assert that if the reverse occurred, and the GFP fragments
associated themselves, they would generate a signal whether or not the test peptide
and known peptide had an affinity for one another. Brief, page 17. Appellants argue
that in the claimed method the anchor component and docking domain bring the
variable component and active domain into spatial proximity to allow modulation of the
active domain.
As discussed above, the claims do not require a specific order of fusion protein
partner binding, as they merely require contact and binding of the fusion proteins. In
view of the above, appellants have failed to indicate a difference between the claimed
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013