Appeal No. 2007-1140
Application No. 10/753,729
by the formula recited in instant claim 1. Appellants admit this by
characterizing the claimed subject matter as a “selection application.”
(Substitute Br. 5; Dec. ¶ 2.) In other words, Cuthbertson’s formula I is
broader than instant claim 1, permitting reporter (16, ll. 5-6) or biomodifier
moieties at either end of the molecule.
Level of skill in the pertinent art
The prior art teaches that it was conventional at the time the invention
was made to attach functional moieties to either end of an RGD peptide. In
addition to Cuthbertson’s teaching of the interchangeability of reporter and
biomodifier positions, we find the following disclosures pertinent to this
issue:
1) Hart1 describes cyclic RGD peptides as vectors for transporting
DNA in cells (p. 3, l. 6 to p. 4, l. 1). The RGD peptide comprises a
“polycationic component [which] may be linked at any position of” it. (Hart
at p. 8, ll. 9-10.)
2) Dean2 describes radiolabeled peptides (col. 4, l. 65 to col. 5, l. 5;
col. 6, l. 59). Labeled RGD peptides are disclosed (col. 6, l. 59; Table
spanning cols. 13-14). The radiolabel can be incorporated at any position of
the peptide (col. 8, l. 24-36).
Based on this evidence, we consider it to have been commensurate
with the level of ordinary skill in the art to chose and interchange positions
of functional groups in an RGD peptide.
1 Hart, PCT Pub. No. WO 98/54347, Dec. 3, 1998.
2 Dean et al. (Dean), U.S. Pat. No. 5,965,107, Oct. 12, 1999.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013