Appeal No. 1997-2741
Application 08/213,873
lines 29-30 (“elevated activity of cathepsin D has been observed in the brains of
Alzheimer’s patients”); and page 4, lines 8-9 (“This invention provides methods
for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in mammals.”).
In the only place the specification refers to any ß-amyloid-associated
disorders other than Alzheimer’s disease, it merely mentions two other brain
disorders as subject to treatment with the disclosed compounds. See page 99,
lines 9-13 (“The compounds of the present invention can be administered for
prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatment of diseases related to the deposition of
ß-amyloid peptide, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Down’s syndrome, and
advanced aging of the brain.”).
Thus, the specification and the prior art cited therein are focused entirely
on disorders of the brain, and almost entirely on Alzheimer’s disease. The
specification does not identify a single disorder associated with ß-amyloid peptide
that occurs in an organ other than the brain. The only indication in the record
that ß-amyloid peptide is associated with any disorders outside of the brain is in
the Appeal Brief, where Appellants state that “there are conditions in organs
other than the brain which are associated with ß-amyloid protein.” Page 5.
Appellants characterize such conditions as “well known to those of ordinary skill
in the art,” but do not cite any evidence in the record that either supports this
assertion or identifies such a condition.
While attorney argument can in some circumstances limit the scope of
patent claims by means of prosecution history estoppel, see Haynes Int'l, Inc. v.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007