Appeal No. 94-1696 Application 07/811,129 and use the full scope of said invention, and for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. It is well established that any analysis of the claims under the first paragraph of § 112 must first “begin with the determination of whether the claims satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). That is, in order to appreciate what, in fact, is the invention before us, the claims must “set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.” Id. Here, we find that the claims are indefinite in the recitation of a first region “having binding specificity for CD11a/CD18." It is not clear which proteins or polypeptides the appellants intend. For example, the specification teaches the construction of fusion proteins comprising either ICAM-1 or ICAM-2 (Example 6); however, Makgoba (Exhibit 10) discloses that several other molecules function as3 ligands for LFA-1. Makgoba, p. 86, sentence bridging cols. 1-2. 3Exhibits 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 14 were attached to Paper No. 5. 9Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007