WALLACH et al. V. SMITH - Page 15


               Interference No. 103,854                                                                                              


              meaning of the term “encapsulated.”  That is, the examiner understood the claims as being                              
              directed to multimers that were within or enclosed by a liposome.   Since this term was                                
              adopted by Wallach without question, we must presume that they also adopted the                                        
              examiner’s meaning thereof.  Accordingly, we find that claim 7 is directed to TBP multimers                            
              which are enclosed by the liposomal membrane.                                                                          
                     The problem now is that by amending the claim(s) to include the controversial phrase,                           
              Wallach, inadvertently or not, changed their scope.  As a result, Wallach’s amendment,                                 
              inadvertently or not, resulted in a claim which lacks written descriptive support in the                               
              specification as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.  In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d                              
              1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981)(“The proper basis for rejection of a claim                                   
              amended to recite elements thought to be without support in the original disclosure, ...  is     §                     
              112, first paragraph...”).  Wallach is reminded that “[t]he purpose of this provision is to ensure                     
              that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope                       
              of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”                          
              Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 2000).                                
              Accordingly, we do not find that Wallach’s arguments address a limitation present in claim 7.                          
                     Having concluded that claim 7 is directed to a multimer which is enclosed by a                                  
              liposome, we now turn to the issue of whether said multimer would have been obvious to one                             
              of ordinary skill in the art in view of the  multimers set forth in Smith claim 39 and Wallach                         
              claim 1, corresponding to the count, in combination with the teachings of Utsumi.  To that                             
              end, we find that Utsumi discloses that liposomes are useful as nontoxic carriers of                                   
              pharmaceutical agents, in general, and that they are particularly suitable for hydrophobic                             
              drugs.  Utsumi, p. 3362, col. 1, last para.  Utsumi further discloses that the encapsulation of                        
              said pharmaceutical agents results in reduced toxicity and may help to target the drugs to                             

                                                                  15                                                                 


Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007