Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The election filed without traverse on 09/18/2025 in response to the Office Action of 07/18/2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Applicant has elected Group III, claims 9-12 and 13-15 in part, drawn to a binding moiety that binds the polypeptide of claim 1.
Additionally, Applicant has elected SEQ ID NO: 170 as species of polypeptide, T cell receptor (TCR) as species of binding moiety. Upon review and reconsideration, SEQ ID NOs: 1-6 will rejoined with SEQ ID NO: 170 for examination.
3. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claims 1-8 and 16 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/18/2025.
Claims 9-15 are currently under prosecution.
Priority
5. Applicant’s claim under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, and/or 365(c) for benefit of the earlier filing date of applications, is acknowledged.
6. Applicant’s claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) for benefit of the earlier filing date of foreign applications, is acknowledged; however, certified copies of the priority documents have not been received.
7. Effective filing date of the claimed invention is 12/09/2022, because the prior applications do not include all SEQ ID NOs: 1-274.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
10. Claims 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a “written description” rejection.
The considerations that are made in determining whether a claimed invention is supported by an adequate written description are outlined by the published Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, ``Written Description'' Requirement (Federal Register; Vol. 66, No. 4, January 5, 2001; The 2015 Written Description Workshop materials; hereinafter “Guidelines”).
These guidelines state that rejection of a claim for lack of written description, where the claim recites the language of an original claim should be rare. Nevertheless, these guidelines further state, “the issue of a lack of written description may arise even for an original claim when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant has possession of the claimed invention” (Id. at 1105). The “Guidelines” continue:
The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. This problem may arise where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process.
With further regard to the proposition that, as original claims, the claims themselves provide in haec verba support sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement, the Federal Circuit has explained that in ipsis verbis support for the claims in the specification does not per se establish compliance with the written description requirement:
Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. The disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also: University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 1892 (CA FC 2004).
Thus, an original claim may provide written description for itself, but it must still be an adequate written description, which establishes that the inventor was in possession of the invention.
The claims are herein drawn to a binding moiety that binds the polypeptide of claim 1 and for use in medicine.
In this instance, the claims are directed to a genus of binding moiety that binds the polypeptide and for use in medicine.
A genus of binding moiety may include, for example, a polypeptide, an antibody, a nucleic acid, or small molecule.
Although the specification teaches a T cell receptor (TCR) or an antibody that binds to the polypeptide (see [0096-0114] and Example 3); however, a T cell receptor (TCR) or an antibody is not representative of the claimed a genus binding moiety; this is because the claimed binding moiety, for example, a polypeptide, an antibody, a nucleic acid, or small molecule have markedly different structures. The artisan would not expect that any given binding moiety would bind to the polypeptide and for use in medicine.
There is no correlation between any one particularly identifying structural feature that is shared by at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed a genus of binding moiety; because each binding moiety is structurally and functionally different. Although the artisan could potentially screen binding moiety, it cannot be predicted whether or not one will be successful. The written description provision set forth under 35 USC 112(a) is severable from its enablement provision, so that written description requirement cannot be met by describing how one might make the invention – rather the invention must be described in such clear and particular terms so as to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that applicant had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application (i.e., the earlier effective US filing date sought).
The skilled artisan could not immediately envision, recognize or distinguish at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed genus of binding moiety.
The specification therefore would not reasonably convey to the skilled artisan Applicant's possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application.
Notably, the Federal Circuit has decided that a patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated. See Noelle v. Lederman, 69 USPQ2d 1508 1514 (CA FC 2004) (citing Enzo Biochem II, 323 F.3d at 965; Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568).
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that “generalized language may not suffice if it does not convey the detailed identity of an invention.” University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 1892 (CAFC 2004).
In this instance, there is no language that adequately describes with any of the requisite clarity or particularity the claimed a genus of binding moiety would bind to the polypeptide and for use in medicine. A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, does not suffice to describe the claimed invention.
While the written description requirement can by satisfied without an actual reduction to practice, the disclosure of a catalog of potentially effective substances that might be found to be useful in practicing the claimed invention does not fulfill the written description requirement.
Recognizing that the claims are drawn to a genus of binding moiety would bind to the polypeptide and for use in medicine, it is aptly noted that the Federal Circuit has decided that a generic statement that defines a genus of substances by only their functional activity, does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. See The Reagents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (CAFC 1997). The Court indicated that while applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of a genus is achieved by the recitation of a precise definition of a representative number of members of the genus, such as by reciting the structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties of those members, rather than by merely reciting a wish for, or even a plan for obtaining a genus of molecules having a particular functional property. The recitation of a functional property alone, which must be shared by the members of the genus, is merely descriptive of what the members of genus must be capable of doing, not of the substance and structure of the members.
Finally, Guidelines states, “[p]ossession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing the invention was ‘ready for patenting’ such as by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention” (Id. at 1104). “Guidelines” further states, “[f]or inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus” (Id. at 1106); accordingly, it follows that an adequate written description of a genus cannot be achieved in the absence of a disclosure of at least one species within the genus. Moreover, because the claims encompass a genus of binding moiety would bind to the polypeptide and for use in medicine, but which otherwise vary materially, structurally and/or functionally, an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. In this instance, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; Applicant has not shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; and Applicant has not described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Turning to a different issue, claim 14 is drawn to a polypeptide for preventing cancer.
The specification teaches peptides for targeting proteins on the surface of tumour cell lines (see Example 1).
Thus, the claim 14 is broad drawn to a polypeptide for preventing of cancer.
The prevention of cancer is highly unpredictable. The majority of studies suggest that the essential element towards the validation of a preventive therapeutic is the ability to test the drug on subjects monitored in advance of clinical cancer and link those results with subsequent histological confirmation of the presence or absence of disease. Further, reasonable guidance with respect to correlating agents that prevent cancer may depend upon quantitative analysis from defined populations that have been successfully pre-screened and are predisposed to particular types of cancer. This type of data might be derived from widespread genetic analysis, cancer clusters, or family histories. For example, Byers, T. (CA Cancer Journal, 1999, 49: 353-361) teaches that randomized controlled trials are commonly regarded as the definitive study for proving causality (1st col., p.358), and that in controlled trials the random assignment of subjects to the intervention eliminates the problems of dietary recalls and controls the effects of both known and unknown confounding factors. Further, Byers suggests that chemo-preventative trials be designed “long-term” such that testing occurs over many years (2nd col., p. 359). The specification is devoid of any models or experimental analysis that reasonably suggests that the claimed peptide would predictably prevent cancer. This, combined with the state of the art of preventing cancer, suggests that undue experimentation would be required to practice the invention as claimed.
Given the unpredictability of cancer prevention art and the teachings of the specification, it is clear that it is not possible to predictably extrapolate the claimed invention. The written description provision set forth under 35 USC 112(a) is severable from its enablement provision, so that written description requirement cannot be met by describing how one might make the invention – rather the invention must be described in such clear and particular terms so as to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that applicant had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application (i.e., the earlier effective US filing date sought).
Therefore, it is submitted that the claimed “preventing of cancer” is not adequately described with the requisite clarity and particularity to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application.
Thus, it is submitted that the instant claims, and the disclosure describing the claimed subject matter, fails to satisfy the written description requirement set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahr et al. (US 20170189504, published on 07/06/2017).
Claims 9-15 are herein drawn to a binding moiety that binds the polypeptide of claim 1, wherein the polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 170, wherein the binding moiety is a T cell receptor (TCR) or an antibody.
Mahr et al. teach peptides bound to molecules of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), or peptides can also be targets of antibodies, soluble T-cell receptors (TCR), the peptides can be used in immunotherapy for treating cancer; see entire document, e.g., abstract, title, [0092].
Mahr et al. teach the peptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 68; see [0093], Table 3.
SEQ ID NO: 68 of Mahr et al. is 100% identical with instant claimed SEQ ID NO: 170; see below sequence alignment 1.
For claim 15, Mahr et al. teach that antibodies are administered to a subject in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier; see [0333].
Double Patenting
14. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
15. Claims 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,792,333. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons:
Claims 9-15 are herein drawn to a binding moiety that binds the polypeptide of claim 1, wherein the polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1-6, wherein the binding moiety is a T cell receptor (TCR) or an antibody.
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,792,333 are drawn to a method of treating cancer in a subject, comprising: administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a binding moiety capable of specifically binding a polypeptide, wherein the polypeptide comprises: (a) the amino acid sequence of any one of SEQ ID NOS: 1-6, or (b) the amino acid sequence of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-6 with the exception of 1, 2 or 3 amino acid substitutions and/or 1, 2 or 3 amino acid insertions, and/or 1, 2 or 3 amino acid deletions, and wherein the polypeptide is capable of forming a complex with a Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) molecule, wherein the binding moiety is a T cell receptor (TCR) or antibody.
SEQ ID NOs: 1-6 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,792,333 are the same as the instant claimed SEQ ID NOs:1-6; see below sequence alignment 2.
In Pfizer, Inc., v. Teva Pharamaceutical USA, inc. (Fed. Cir, 2008), the Court concluded that the safe harbor of section 121 is limited to divisional applications only. The instant application is not filed as a result of a restriction requirement of U.S. Patent No. 10,792,333. The binding moiety claimed in the claims of the patent are the same as the instantly claimed binding moiety.
Conclusion
16. No claim is allowed.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached on 571-270-3503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAN XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642
Sequence alignment 1
US-15-374-415-68
(NOTE: this sequence has 44 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
Sequence 68, US/15374415
Publication No. US20170189504A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: immatics biotechnologies GmbH
TITLE OF INVENTION: Novel peptides and combination of peptides for use in
TITLE OF INVENTION: immunotherapy against various cancers
FILE REFERENCE: I32936WO; 2912919-059002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/374,415
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2016-12-09
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: GB1521894.4
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-12-11
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/266,233
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-12-11
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 306
SEQ ID NO 68
LENGTH: 9
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 45; Length 9;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 9; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 SLSNRLYYL 9
|||||||||
Db 1 SLSNRLYYL 9
Sequence alignment 2
US-15-777-144-1
Sequence 1, US/15777144
Patent No. 10792333
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Immunocore Limited
APPLICANT: Adaptimmune Limited
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peptides
FILE REFERENCE: P101654WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/777,144
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-05-17
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/GB2016/053643
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-11-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 1520568.5
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-11-23
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 24
SEQ ID NO 1
LENGTH: 10
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 50; Length 10;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 10; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 ALDESNTYQL 10
||||||||||
Db 1 ALDESNTYQL 10
US-15-777-144-2
Sequence 2, US/15777144
Patent No. 10792333
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Immunocore Limited
APPLICANT: Adaptimmune Limited
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peptides
FILE REFERENCE: P101654WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/777,144
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-05-17
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/GB2016/053643
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-11-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 1520568.5
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-11-23
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 24
SEQ ID NO 2
LENGTH: 11
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 52; Length 11;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 11; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 SLYASGLLTGV 11
|||||||||||
Db 1 SLYASGLLTGV 11
US-15-777-144-3
Sequence 3, US/15777144
Patent No. 10792333
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Immunocore Limited
APPLICANT: Adaptimmune Limited
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peptides
FILE REFERENCE: P101654WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/777,144
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-05-17
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/GB2016/053643
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-11-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 1520568.5
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-11-23
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 24
SEQ ID NO 3
LENGTH: 9
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 47; Length 9;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 9; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 RCLFQLETV 9
|||||||||
Db 1 RCLFQLETV 9
US-15-777-144-4
Sequence 4, US/15777144
Patent No. 10792333
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Immunocore Limited
APPLICANT: Adaptimmune Limited
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peptides
FILE REFERENCE: P101654WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/777,144
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-05-17
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/GB2016/053643
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-11-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 1520568.5
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-11-23
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 24
SEQ ID NO 4
LENGTH: 9
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 42; Length 9;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 9; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 SLYASGLLT 9
|||||||||
Db 1 SLYASGLLT 9
US-15-777-144-5
Sequence 5, US/15777144
Patent No. 10792333
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Immunocore Limited
APPLICANT: Adaptimmune Limited
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peptides
FILE REFERENCE: P101654WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/777,144
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-05-17
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/GB2016/053643
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-11-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 1520568.5
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-11-23
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 24
SEQ ID NO 5
LENGTH: 9
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 44; Length 9;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 9; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 YASGLLTGV 9
|||||||||
Db 1 YASGLLTGV 9
US-15-777-144-6
Filing date in PALM: 2018-05-17
Sequence 6, US/15777144
Patent No. 10792333
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Immunocore Limited
APPLICANT: Adaptimmune Limited
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peptides
FILE REFERENCE: P101654WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/777,144
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-05-17
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/GB2016/053643
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-11-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 1520568.5
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-11-23
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 24
SEQ ID NO 6
LENGTH: 9
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 45; Length 9;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 9; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 LPDGSRVEL 9
|||||||||
Db 1 LPDGSRVEL 9