Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
Daniel Alkon (Alkon) and George J. Augustine (Augustine) to
support their view that the claim defines “a well-defined
class of materials to those in the art and, with the
disclosure given . . . the invention could be practised [sic]
without difficulty using any such material as defined” (Alkon,
p. 3, para. 6; Augustine, p. 3, para. 6).
In the Examiner’s Answer (Ans., pp. 3-4), the examiner
explained what he had meant by “broader than the specific
supporting disclosure” in the first and FINAL office actions:
The claims do not structurally define the compounds to be
used and the K range, a common property of structurally
D
diverse compounds, does not distinguish one potential
drug
class from another. Thus, one skilled in the art would
have to imagine which drug to use.
. . . . .
In this case, the compounds are not defined because
cell membrane permeant calcium buffer does not evoke a
mental image of a chemical structure and the K range is
D
such a general property that it does not distinguish a
particular class of compounds.
The examiner added (Ans., pp. 4-5, bridging para.; emphasis in
original):
In addition, claims to treating injury to cells
in a host are not enabled because they are overly broad.
Treating injury to cells in a host reads on treating all
patients since normal physiology and all diseases result
in cell injury. Applicant merely showing effect for cell
injury caused by select conditions, ischemia and
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007