Appeal No. 94-2504
Application 07/963,676
epilepsy.
Applicant does not provide a general teaching that the
results shown would enable one skilled in the art to
treat
all other diseases. The pharmaceutical arts are
inherently
unpredictable and method of universal treatment is highly
speculative as no single medical method is known which
can
treat all diseases. As such, the limited nature of the
examples and [sic] are not sufficient quid pro quo for
the broad claims in an unpredictable art to an invention
speculative in nature. Ex parte Forman 230 USPQ 546
(PTOB 1986).
In a Reply Brief filed January 5, 1994, appellants argued
that the Examiner’s Answer had raised new arguments. In
response to the new arguments, appellants filed an Amendment
Accompanying Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) which limited the
claimed method to one for “reducing the damaging effect of an
excitotoxic, ischemic or traumatic injury” (Amendment, p. 1).
The examiner entered appellants’ Reply Brief and notified
appellants of that action. The examiner did not
substantively respond to the extensive arguments set forth in
the Reply Brief. See Paper No. 16. However, the examiner
refused entry of the accompanying amendment. See the
handwritten instructions on Paper No. 14. It does not appear
from the record the examiner informed appellants that the
amendment was not entered.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007