Appeal No. 1997-1849
Application 08/414,180
According to the examiner, the instant specification would not have enabled any
person skilled in the art to use the claimed invention throughout its scope without undue
experimentation. We disagree.
First, the examiner misapprehends the rather limited scope of applicants' claims.
Independent claim 49 is drawn to a method for treating an addictive, compulsive disorder
caused by alcohol or cocaine abuse, by administering to a human or animal suffering from
such disorder, an effective amount of a specified 1-(substituted-phenyl)-3-
azabicyclo[3.1.0]hexane. Likewise, independent claim 50 is drawn to a method for
treating drug dependence caused by alcohol or cocaine abuse, by administering to a
human or animal suffering from or dependent on a drug, an effective amount of a specified
1-(substituted-phenyl)-3-azabicyclo[3.1.0]hexane. The examiner incorrectly characterizes
these claims as though drawn to methods for treating substance addiction or drug
dependence or substance abuse in general (Examiner's Answer, page 3, first full
paragraph). They are not. As stated in the Appeal Brief, page 2, first paragraph, and as
reflected in the independent claims, applicants' invention relates to a method for treating a
human or animal suffering from chemical dependence on alcohol or cocaine.
Second, it does not appear that the examiner has a quarrel with applicants' claims
to the extent that they read on (1) a method for treating an addictive, compulsive disorder
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007