Appeal 2007-2517
Application 10/311,196
polypeptide’s utility is a human taste-specific receptor (Answer 11). The
Examiner also contends that “taste-specific receptor activity” is not a
specific and substantial utility because Appellants’ have not discovered the
“taste” for which the receptor is specific (Answer 7).
The threshold question is whether the Specification discloses that
SEQ ID NO: 2 is a human taste-specific receptor. Because we decide the
answer to this question is no, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of
whether taste-specific receptor activity is a specific and substantial utility.
The dispute between the Examiner and Appellants’ centers on the
following facts:
1) “The metabotropic glutamate receptor family also includes
pheromone receptors, the GABAB receptors, and the taste receptors”
(Spec. 4: 5-6). See Br. 5. The Ca2+ sensing receptor is also a member (Spec.
4: 1-5).
2) Table 2 lists mouse (Mus musculus) taste receptor T1R3 “as the
nearest GenBank homolog for the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:2 based on a
zero (0) probability score for a match by BLAST analysis” (Br. 6). “The
BLAST probability score . . . indicates the probability of obtaining the
observed polypeptide sequence alignment by chance” (Spec. 25: 35 to
26: 1-2). (“[A] probability score of zero (0) means that there is zero
probability of having obtained the match by chance” (Br. 6)). The relevant
portion of Table 2 (Spec. 81) is reproduced below:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013