Appeal No. 2005-2235 Page 5
Application No. 09/038,894
lowering therapy. According to appellants’ specification (page 19), “[a]s used
herein, activation lowering therapy (A.L.T.) refers to any means in which the level
of activated cells is lowered. Such means include lifestyle and dietary changes,
[as well as,] drug therapy….” Therefore, we agree with the examiner finding
(Answer, page 10), that the claims read “on everything from taking a day off from
work to taking futhan.” We note, however, that simply because appellants define
the phrase “activation lowering therapy” broadly does not mean it is indefinite.
“Breadth is not to be equated with indefiniteness.” In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,
693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971); see also In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-
15, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Lastly, as required by claim 32, by performing the method steps, a disease
or disorder is prevented, or the risk of a poor outcome of a treatment of a disease
or disorder is reduced. According to the examiner (Answer, page 10),
“[p]revention means to completely stop something from happening otherwise it
occurs and was not prevented.” We agree with the examiner’s interpretation of
the term, and accordingly fail to understand why the examiner finds the use of
the term “preventing” as it appears in claim 32 indefinite.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we reverse the rejection of claims 10-18,
32-36, 38, 41 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007