Appeal 2007-1819
Application 09/886,055
receptors,” a very limited genus. (Id. at 9.) Thus, the “skilled artisan would
attempt to obtain alternate compounds with improved properties” by using
Burford’s disclosed 24 polypeptides suggested to be olfactory receptors.
(Id.)
Based on these conflicting positions, the single issue before us with
respect to claim 23 is, would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use Burford’s SEQ ID NO: 27 (Appellants’ SEQ ID NO:55) in the
assay method taught by Krautwurst, as required by claim 23?
The following findings of fact are supported by the record and by the
scope and content of the prior art and level of skill in the art:9
1. Krautwurst’s teachings “provide[s] a model system for the study of
ligand specificity and structure-function relationships for olfactory
receptors.” (Krautwurst 918 (col. 1).)
2. As admitted by Appellants, Krautwurst discloses all the limitations
of claim 23 except the use of “an olfactory receptor as set forth in SEQ ID
NO:55.” (Br. 7. See also Answer 4-5 (citing Krautwurst 918-20 & Table
3).)
3. Thus, the single difference between Krautwurt’s assay method and
that of Appellants is Appellants’ use of SEQ ID NO:55. (FF 2.)
4. Burford expressly discloses a limited number polypeptides having
olfactory receptor signatures and homology to known olfactory receptors,
including SEQ ID NO:55 (identified by Burford as SEQ ID NO:27). (See,
e.g., Burford 38-42 (Table 3); Answer 7-9 (quoted in part above).)
5. Burford’s SEQ ID NO:27 is from “ORGANISM: Homo sapiens”
(Burford 76 (Table 7)), and the nucleic acid encoding it (SEQ ID NO:66)
9 Findings of Fact are abbreviated “FF.”
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013