Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
Apparently, Claim 10 was considered allowable in independent
form, and Claims 3, 5-9 and 17-25 stood withdrawn from
consideration by the examiner.
2. Introduction
Claims 1 and 11-16 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, because the phrase “‘cell membrane
permeant calcium buffer’ is broader than the specific
supporting disclosure . . . [and] also broader than the
elected invention” (Paper No. 6, page 2). All claims on
appeal stand or fall (Appeal Brief (Br.), p. 3) with
independent Claim 1. Claim 1 on appeal reads:
1. A method of reducing the damaging effect of
an injury to cells in mammalian tissue of a host in
vivo and treatment of epilepsy, said method comprising
treating a host in need of such treatment with a non-
toxic, damage-reducing effective amount of a cell
membrane permeant calcium buffer which is a calcium
ion chelating agent having a K selected from the
D
-4 -8
range 1 x 10 to 1 x 10 Molar.
Appellants argued in their Appeal Brief (Br.) that the
examiner had not adequately considered the specificity with
which the “calcium buffer” utilized in the method claimed is
described
(Br. 5-6, bridging para.) and submitted the Declarations of
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007