Appeal No. 1997-2167
Application 08/137,444
statute. All that happened here is that appellants
narrowed their claims to avoid having them read on a
lost interference count.
Here, appellants have merely retreated from the full scope of
their originally disclosed invention in light of appellants'
recognition that their original claims included unpatentable
compounds. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner has rejected claims 50 and 51 because the
examiner believes appellants' expressed intention of what they
intended to claim in claims 50 and 51 does not comport with
the language of claims 50 and 51. Appellants direct our
attention to the specification at page 6, lines 6 through 8
wherein it is disclosed that certain galanthamine derivatives
cleave to form in situ the compound 6-O-demethylgalanthamine
which is admitted by appellants to be a known AChE inhibitor.
Appellants urge that the claims, therefor, are directed to
administering the compounds of either claims 2 or 31,
respectively, to form, in situ, the admittedly known AChE
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007