Further, Petitioner asserts that the following statement in Fleisher suggests other activatable proteins for evaluation: “This technique should find applications in the study of multiple phosphorylation- dependent pathways such as those involving other Jak-STAT combinations, IkB, and MAP kinases.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 429).
Thus, based on the information presented at this stage of the proceeding, we are satisfied Petitioner has shown sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 3, 7–9, and 22 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fleisher and Belloc.
Thus, based on the information presented at this stage of the proceeding, we are satisfied Petitioner has shown sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Darzynkiewicz and Yen.
On the current record, we discern no deficiency in Petitioner’s characterization of the knowledge in the art at the time of the invention, the teachings of Darzynkiewicz, Yen, and Belloc, or in Petitioner’s assertions as to the reasonable inferences an ordinary artisan would make from those combined
Thus, based on the information presented at this stage of the proceeding, we are satisfied Petitioner has shown sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 3, 7–9, and 22 as obvious over the combined teachings of Darzynkiewicz, Yen, and Belloc.