Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
of an injury to cells in mammalian tissue in vivo and
treatment of epilepsy,” not “to compounds” as the examiner
indicated. Moreover, as filed, Claims 2-16 were all dependent
upon Claim 1 which generically defined the treating agent as
“a cell membrane permeant calcium buffer.” Needless to say,
our attempts to comprehend the examiner’s restriction
requirement have been unsuccessful.
In response to the restriction requirement (Paper No. 4,
filed January 6, 1993), applicants interpreted the examiner’s
restriction requirement as requiring restriction between
(I) method Claims 1-16, (II) method Claims 23-25, (III)
compound Claims 17-21, and (IV) composition Claim 22, and an
election of a species of buffer. Accordingly, applicants
elected the method of Claim 10 and BAPTA-AM as the species of
buffer.
In a second office action mailed February 5, 1993 (Paper
No. 6), the examiner withdrew Claims 2-9 and 17-25 from
consideration without explanation and indicated that Claims 1
and 10-16 would be examined. The examiner then summarily
rejected Claims 1 and 10-16 as follows (Paper No. 6, p. 2):
Claims 1 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007