Appeal No. 95-3746
Application 08/063,431
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the
ground that the claimed invention lacks patentable utility,
and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the ground that
the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Before utility is determined, the claims must be
interpreted to define the invention to be tested for utility.
See Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956, 220 USPQ
592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984).
"Claim construction is a question of law, reviewed non-
deferentially on appeal." Mantech Environmental Corp. v.
Hudson Environmental Services, 152 F.3d 1368, 1371, 47 USPQ2d
1732, 1735 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appellants claim methods for treating mammals to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007