Appeal No. 2007-0091
Application No. 09/765,491
curcuminoid-containing polymer formulation for implantation. The claim
again requires administration to an “individual in need of treatment,”
requiring treatment of an individual suffering from one of the recited
disorders, and states that “an effective amount . . . to inhibit angiogenesis” is
administered.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 4 but includes a broader list of disorders
and a narrower list of compounds: the disorders include all those in claim 4
along with rosacea and eczema, but the compounds are limited to
collagenase-inhibiting tetracyclines and angiogenesis-inhibiting sulfated
polysaccharides.
2. INDEFINITENESS
Claims 4-6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. The Examiner argues that
[t]he term “amount effective” in claims 4 and 17 is indefinite
since it is not clear what are the “effective amount[s]” to be
employed in the active agents (collagenase inhibitors,
angiogenic fumagillin derivatives, . . . ) in order to inhibit
angiogenesis without clear guidelines of effective amounts of
the agents being utilized.
(Answer 5.)
Appellant argues that “effective amount” is “a common and generally
acceptable term for pharmaceutical claims. . . . An effective amount of the
angiogenesis inhibitor is an amount as required to alleviate the symptoms of
the particular disorder being treated.” (Br. 9, citing page 14, lines 28-29 of
the Specification.)
We will reverse this rejection. “A claim is indefinite if, when read in
light of the specification, it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013