Appeal No. 96-0009
Application 08/104,417
§ 112, first paragraph, see In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.
12, 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1439 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Jolles,
628 F.2d 1322, 1326 n.10, 206 USPQ 885, 889 n.11 (CCPA 1980);
In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1243, 169 USPQ 429, 434 (CCPA
1971), we address both the issues of utility and enablement.
Appellants point out that the claimed invention is
directed toward a method for inhibiting the L-glutamate
neurotransport system and not toward a method for treating
disorders of central nervous systems in humans, and argue that
in their method, as stated in their specification (page 5,
lines 6-14), specific inhibitors of L-glutamate uptake provide
useful probes for evaluating the role of the transport system
in neurotransmission (brief, pages 15 and 18). As evidence
that the claimed invention has the asserted utility,
appellants rely upon their specification, the second
declaration of Dr. Richard Bridges, filed on March 14, 1994,
and an advertisement newsletter by the British company Tocris
Neuramin.2
2 The Tocris Neuramin advertisement newsletter states that
L-trans-pyrrolidine-2,4-dicarboxylic acid inhibits L-glutamate
uptake into synaptosomes, but provides no supporting data.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007