Appeal No. 94-4260
Application 07/849,191
The appellant has carefully set forth the manner in which she
believes the factors articulated by the court in In re Wands,
858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) for
determining undue experimentation, apply to the facts of this
case.
We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments,
however, we find that she has misunderstood the primary reason
underlying our rejection. We do not quibble with the method
disclosed or the results observed. Rather, with respect to
claim 1, the problem is that the claim is directed to a method
of treating baldness “to restore hair growth.” Restoration
means “to return to its original state.” Webster’s II New
Riverside University Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin Co. (1994).
The appellant’s reports of “three times as much hair growth as
two months earlier,” “filling-in some,” and “fuzz,” are not
equivalent to the restoration of the patients’ hair growth to
its original state. Accordingly, in our view, the
specification would not have enabled one skilled in the art to
make and use the method, as claimed.
III.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007