Appeal No. 2005-0902 Page 4
Application No. 09/529,053
thereof that retain all or part of the anti-viral activity of leflunomide.” Page 18, lines
12-18. Regarding effective doses of leflunomide, the specification states:
Anti-viral therapeutically effective amounts of leflunomide product include
amounts effective for inhibiting viral growth, i.e., replication, or inhibiting
virion assembly. The leflunomide product can be administered to humans
at doses ranging from about 0.1 to 80 mg daily, varying in children and
adults, or more preferably at doses ranging from about 15 to 25 mg daily
for adults. Most preferable are doses calculated to provide a circulating
blood level of about 40 to 60 µM.
Page 16, lines 17-23.
Reading the claims in light of the specification, therefore, we construe claim 16 to
require administration of leflunomide, its active metabolite, related derivatives, or anti-
virally active metabolites thereof, in an amount that is effective to inhibit viral growth or
viral assembly; such amounts can vary from 0.1 mg/day to 80 mg/day for a human.
We do not interpret claim 16 to require administering leflunomide to a patient;
i.e., in vivo administration. Claim 16 requires only contacting a cell that is susceptible to
viral infection with a leflunomide product. It does not require administering a
leflunomide product to a patient or a human or an animal. During examination, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since claim 16 is not expressly
limited to an in vivo method, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that it
also reads on in vitro methods.
We also do not interpret claim 16 to be limited to a method of treating cells that
are already infected by viruses. Claim 25 adds to claim 16 the limitation that the “cells
are virally infected.” Since a dependent claim must further limit the claim from which it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007