Appeal No. 1997-1705
Application 08/211,352
and “[a]t this stage the effects of the toxin had clinically
worn off and it was found that the knee flexed to the same
extent in swing that it did prior to injection” (page 10). 7
These statements, however, pertain to functional improvements
and knee flexure, whereas claims 1 and 7 require that normal
muscle growth continues to be promoted after the clinical
activity of the toxin ends. Appellant has not pointed out,
and we do not find, written descriptive support in the
original specification for this claim requirement.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, of claim 1 and claims 2-4 which depend
therefrom, and claim 7 and claims 15 and 16 which depend
therefrom. Also, this is an additional reason for affirming
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of claim
10 which depends from claim 7.
Claims 6 and 17 require that the relief from arrested
muscle growth has a duration which is greater than the
clinical activity of the presynaptic neurotoxin. This
7 The article relied upon by appellant on page 14 of the
brief is not part of the specification and is not prior art.
Thus, we give it no weight in our determination of whether the
specification complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007