Appeal No. 1997-1705
Application 08/211,352
section of the statute.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that there is inadequate written
descriptive support in appellant’s original specification for
“having a duration greater than a clinical activity of said
presynaptic neurotoxin” in claims 1, 6 and 17, “having a
duration greater than a clinical activity of said botulinum
toxin” in claim 7, and “having a clinical activity of about
four months” in claim 10.
We do not find in appellant’s briefs a challenge to the
rejection based on the language in claim 10. We therefore
affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
of claim 10 and claims 11 and 12 which depend therefrom.
Claims 1 and 7 require that the promotion of normal
muscle growth has a duration greater than the clinical
activity of the presynaptic neurotoxin or botulinum toxin.
Appellant argues (brief, page 12; reply brief, page 8) that
this language is supported by the statements in the
specification that “such functional improvements persist when
the tone reducing effects of the toxin have worn off” (page 4)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007