Appeal No. 1995-1990
Application 08/006,691
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. As to claim 9, this was the only remaining rejection
of record. Although the examiner has not indicated that claim 9 is allowable, the claim is
no longer subject to rejection. Therefore, claims 9 and 15 are not presented in this appeal.
Further, claims 23-24 were added by amendment in the paper filed March 31, 1994.
(Paper No. 28). The Office action of May 31, 1994 (Paper No. 31) indicates that the
examiner approved the entry of this amendment but fails to indicate the status of these two
claims. Since claims 23 and 24 depend from allowed claim 15 and are not subject to
rejection, we do not regard them as present on appeal.
Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced
below:
1. A method for preventing neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia in a subject, in
whom neuroleptic treatment is indicated but who has not received a neuroleptic,
comprising:
commencing administration of an effective dose of an opiate receptor antagonist,
said antagonist selected from the group consisting of naltrexone, naloxone, nalmefene,
and naltrindole, to the subject concurrently with the commencement of administration of a
neuroleptic prior to appearance of symptoms of hyperkinesia.
14. A method for treating a genetic hyperkinetic movement disorder in a subject
comprising administering to the subject an effective dose of an opiate receptor antagonist,
said antagonist selected from the group consisting of naltrexone, naloxone, nalmefene,
and naltrindole.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007