Appeal 2007-0866
Application 09/993,234
A7. “no fragments having any likeness to the Apo-3 polypeptide of the
present claims are identified in the ‘285 application” (Br. 8).
A8. the Examiner’s “comparison of a segment of the deduced DR3-V1
polypeptide starting at amino acid position No. 36 with a portion of the Apo-
3 polypeptide of the present claims” is “impermissibly based either on the
knowledge of the sequence of the present claims or the disclosure from Yu .
. . that was not included in the ‘285 application” (id).
A9. “The ‘285 application provides no indication that a region of the
deduced DR3-VI polypeptide starting at amino acid position No. 36 exists as
a separate polypeptide, begins a region of interest in the DR3-V1
polypeptide . . ., or has any significance whatsoever” (Br. 9).
We recognize, Appellant’s discussion of their numbering convention
(A4-A6 and A8) and assertion that Yu fails to identify or attribute a function
to any particular region of their sequence that is defined by the amino acid
residue numbers set forth in claim 34 (A7 and A9).5 Nevertheless, we find
that Appellant’s concerns are misplaced. The issue is not whether Yu
defines a fragment having a specifically defined function that corresponds to
at least one of the specific regions set forth in claim 34, because the claims
cover polypeptides which comprise these specific regions.
5 We disagree with this assertion. ‘285 teaches that “[a]mino acids 1-30
constitute the signal peptide, amino acids 30-215 the ligand binding domain,
amino acids 215-240 the transmembrane domain, amino acids 240-428 the
intracellular domain, and amino acids 350-420 the death domain.” The
Examiner’s focus in on the ligand binding domain.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013