Appeal No. 95-2743
Application 08/023,016
claims must be read in view of the specification of which they are a part.” Vitronics Corp.
v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
With this background in mind, we point out that the claims are not limited to the
treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, as argued by the appellants in their brief, but
that they include the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders. In turning first to the
specification to determine the meaning of the terms within the claims, we find that it
discloses that neurodegenerative disorders include, inter alia, head trauma.2
Specification, p. 1, lines 21-24. The specification further discloses that “the instant
3
invention would be useful in a range of incidents, for example, in ... status epilepticus.” Id.,
p. 2, lines 4-8. The specification still further discloses that “U.S. Patent 4,629,731
[Lobbestael] covers the phenyl pyridinyl urea compounds of the instant invention... and their
use as an anticonvulsant.” Specification, p. 3, lines 32-35. The specification states that
“[t]he term convulsions is intended to mean the characteristic body movements which are
associated with the group of chronic central nervous system disorders termed epilepsies”
[emphasis added]. Id., sentence bridging pp. 3-4. Thus, upon return of this application,
the examiner should consider making a fact-based analysis and setting forth, on the
2The Merck Index relied on by the examiner teaches that epilepsy may be
associated with a variety of cerebral disorders which include cerebral trauma.
3Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 24th Edition, defines status epilepticus as “a
condition in which one major attack of epilepsy succeeds another with little or no
intermission.” Stedman’s, p. 1334; copy attached to this decision.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007