Appeal 2007-2956
Application 10/677,733
utilized for ligand screening (see, e.g., Takahaski, at col. 9, ll. 14-16; Edery,
at col. 46-50).
Appellants state that a Declaration has been provided “documenting
the fact that one skilled in the art would have considered the claimed
invention nonobvious at the time it was made” (App. Br. 5). Paragraph No.
4 of the declaration (Declaration under § 1.132 by Dr. Stephen Sprang)
repeats the same argument set forth in the Appeal Brief that we have already
found to be unpersuasive.
Dr. Sprang states that he is “familiar” with the instant patent
application, but he does not indicate his familiarity with the rejection at issue
in this appeal nor the references cited in it. Moreover, he makes no mention
of the references cited in the § 103 rejection, nor has he explained why the
claimed invention is nonobvious over them. For this additional reason, we
do not find the declaration sufficient to rebut the rejection.
The Specification refers to various prior art publications, including
Morais Cabral (Cell, 95:649-655, 1998), for teaching “structurally
characterized PAS domains without bound cofactors (. . . Morais Cabral et
al., 1998) showing tightly packed cores with no pre-formed cavities that
would suggest a cofactor or ligand binding site” (Spec. 2: 2-5). Morais
Cabral, which Appellant admits satisfies the claim limitations for a PAS
domain (App. Br. 5), compares the eag PAS domain of the HERG potassium
channel to other PAS domain proteins known to comprise a ligand in their
hydrophobic core (see id., at 852, col. 2, describing the PYP photoreceptor
which has a chromophore associated with its PAS domain). Morais Cabral
conclude: “[g]iven the regulatory roles of PAS domains in other protein
systems, we suspect that the eag domain will have a dynamic influence on
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013