Appeal 2007-0537
Application 10/102,902
“homologous proteins show quite similar patterns of secondary chemical
shifts.” (FF 9; see also FFs 10-17.)
26. The skilled artisan, applying Cornilescu’s teachings to search for
homologous proteins, would have had a reasonable expectation of
identifying such proteins. (See FF 9-17.)
27. The skilled artisan, faced with the problem of further
implementing Cornilescu’s method on a computer, including the use of
NMR to study chemical shifts, would have had reason to look to the general
teachings in the prior art, such as those of Gilhuijs.
28. Appellants’ contested and undefined terms “features” and
“descriptor,” and “context-adaptive scaling” are sufficiently broad to include
Cornilescu’s “chemical shifts” and “amino acid sequences,” and “k-values
scaling,” respectively. (FFs 2-7, 9-11, 17-18.)
29. In addition, their broad definition of “fragment pairs” includes
Cornilescu’s amino acid residues separated by a dihedral bond. (FFs 10-11,
14-17.)
DISCUSSION
The § 103 Rejection Based on Cornilescu and Gilhuijs
Our decision whether to affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-
19, 21-23, and 25-26 turns primarily on claim interpretation, more
specifically the meaning of the terms “features,” “fragment pair,”
“descriptor,” and “context-adaptive scaling.” Except when applicants
expressly define their claim terms, “claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. [This]
proposition ‘serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims,
finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified,’ . . . and it is
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013