Appeal No. 94-1696
Application 07/811,129
and use the full scope of said invention, and for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the applicant regards as the invention.
It is well established that any analysis of the claims under
the first paragraph of § 112 must first “begin with the
determination of whether the claims satisfy the requirements of
the second paragraph.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). That is, in order to appreciate what,
in fact, is the invention before us, the claims must “set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity.” Id. Here, we find that the claims
are indefinite in the recitation of a first region “having
binding specificity for CD11a/CD18." It is not clear which
proteins or polypeptides the appellants intend. For example, the
specification teaches the construction of fusion proteins
comprising either ICAM-1 or ICAM-2 (Example 6); however, Makgoba
(Exhibit 10) discloses that several other molecules function as3
ligands for LFA-1. Makgoba, p. 86, sentence bridging cols. 1-2.
3Exhibits 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 14 were attached to Paper No.
5.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007