Appeal 2007-0856
Application 09/281,474
and the biological-function domain (Sharma, col. 39, ll. 50-61). As
discussed above, claim 1 encompasses a compound with a spacer consisting
of C(=O). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to include a linking group within the formula recited in claim 1
between the non-RGD peptide and the metal binding domain of Palladino to
reduce potential steric hindrance.
Appellants argue that Palladino “lacks a chelator, or in the alternative,
lacks the limitation of the ‘targeting moiety bound to a chelator’” (Br. 5).
In particular, Palladino refers to “immunological labeling techniques as
opposed to chelators” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Although Palladino also
describes labeling techniques that do not involve chelators, we agree with
the Examiner that Palladino describes a targeting moiety bound to a chelator
for the reasons discussed above.
Appellants also argue that Sharma “relates to conformationally fixed
peptides and metallo-constructs that have a metal ion binding backbone. . . .
A metal is attached to O, N, or S, atoms present in the backbone or side
chains of the peptide. Thus, Sharma also fails to teach a ‘targeting moiety
bound to’ a chelator.’” (Br. 6.) “In fact, in col. 39, the Sharma reference
states ‘[i]n these constructs a metal binding site is introduced between two
pre-selected ends of a linear peptide that contains the biological function
domain.’ . . . If the peptide targeting moiety is the chelator, it’s not ‘bound
to’ the chelator.” (Id.) “Therefore, even when combined, the references fail
to teach all limitations of the claims” (id.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013