Appeal No. 94-4009 Paper No. 32
Application No. 07/953,716 Page 5
Cir. 1998). We begin by construing the claims "to define the
scope and meaning of each contested limitation." Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 11 has three elements in addition to the
compound: three purposes for the method, the subject of the
method (a patient in need of the compound), and the time to
treat the patient (prior to atherosclerotic intimal
thickening). As noted previously, it is not contested that
the Fujikawa patents teach administering the same compounds at
the same effective dose. We may presume that identical
compounds (here in the same effective dose) will have the same
characteristics absent evidence to the contrary. In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Purposes of the method
Claim 11 recites three purposes in the alternative:
‚ inhibiting proliferation of aortic intimal
smooth muscle cells,
‚ inhibiting migration of aortic medial smooth
muscle cells into intima, or
‚ inhibiting adhesion of blood cells to
endothelium.
In each case the purpose is to inhibit rather than
prevent the specified condition. The specification indicates
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007