Appeal No. 1997-2756
Application 08/242,728
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification[] and that claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.") (citations omitted). Further, Roth explicitly describes the treatment of asthma with a
substance which is characterized as inhibiting or blocking the activities evoked by the
presence of thrombin. To the extent that appellants would urge that the phrase "an
effective amount" as used in claim 6 should be read to require a specific pharmacological
effect or result (Brief, page 7 and paragraph 4 of the Panettieri Declaration), we note that
appellants have offered no evidence which would reasonably establish that nedocromil
sodium does not inhibit "-thrombin.
Appellants, additionally, argue that Roth fails to teach the pharmacological effect on
which the present invention is based (Reply Brief, page 2). However, claim 6 does not
require a particular pharmacological effect, but defines the claimed subject matter in terms
of the therapeutic effect of treating asthma. Further, as we have stated, Roth does state
that nedocromil sodium inhibits or blocks the activity of thrombin. While not necessarily the
pharmacological effect on which the described therapy is based, the method of treatment
of asthma with a substance which has antithrombin activity is explicitly taught.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007