Ex parte LIN et al. - Page 2




             Appeal No. 96-1055                                                                                   
             Application 07/727,331                                                                               


             claims 1-5 and 14.  Claims 6-13 have been canceled.                                                  


                                                THE INVENTION                                                     
                    Appellants claimed invention is directed toward a method                                      
             for treating a warm blooded animal infected with a retrovirus                                        
             by administering to the animal a specified compound or                                               
             pharmaceutical salt thereof.  Claim 1 is illustrative and                                            
             reads as follows:                                                                                    
                    1.    A method for treating warm blooded animals infected                                     
             with a retrovirus, the method comprising administering to the                                        
             warm blooded animal an anti-retroviral effective amount of                                           
             2',3'-dideoxy 2',3'-didehydrocytidine or a pharmaceutically                                          
             acceptable salt thereof, either alone or in admixture with a                                         
             diluent or in the form of a medicament.                                                              
                                                THE REJECTION                                                     
                    Claims 1-5 and 14 stand rejected 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.  We therefore do not sustain this rejection.                                                

                                                       -2-2                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007