Appeal No. 97-1999
Application 07/390,745
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the claimed compositions are not
fully described by Schroder. During the examination process,
the language of the claims is to be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of
the invention in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In that
light, the compositions appellants claim must be interpreted
to include only those pharmaceutical compositions which are
suitable “for administration to a patient” (Claim 15), i.e.,
“suitable pharmaceutical formulations for administering by
injection” (Specification, p. 12, l. 22-24). The
specification teaches (1)(Specification, p. 26, l. 2-8):
The Formula I partial agonist compounds of the
present invention may be made into sterile pharmaceutical
compositions for injection, by combination with
appropriate
pharmaceutically acceptable carriers or diluents, and may
be formulated into preparations in liquid for injections
in the usual ways for this respective route of
administration.
(2)(Specification, p. 27, l. 9-12):
Parenteral administration of the compounds of the
present invention can easily be had by a pharmaceutically
acceptable carrier, such as Sterile Water for Injection,
USP, or by a sterile saline solution.
and (3) (Specification, p. 28, l. 8-10):
Possible routes of administration include
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007