Appeal No. 1999-1417
Application 08/268,730
All of the factors need not be reviewed when determining whether a disclosure is enabling.
Rather, the Wands factors “are illustrative, not mandatory. What is relevant depends on the
facts.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d at 1372,
52 USPQ2d at 1136.
The claimed invention is directed to a method of treating a variety of
neurodegenerative disorders by administering a specified N-acyl-lysoganglioside, or
derivatives or salts thereof, to a patient in need of such treatment. In the language of
independent claim 76, applicants treat “disorders related to excitatory amino acid-induced
neurotoxicity;” whereas claim 80 recites “A method of treating a patient suffering from the
effect of neurotoxins.” These disorders include, inter alia, neurolathyrism, amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis, epilepsy, hypoglycemia, CNS trauma, Huntington’s Disease, Alzheimer’s
Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, Wernicke/Korsakoff Syndrome, and Jakob-Creutzfeldt
Syndrome.
On reflection, we agree with the examiner that claims 76 through 80 cover a large
area in view of the recitations “a method of treating disorders related to excitatory amino
acid-induced neurotoxicity” and “a method of treating a patient suffering from the effect of
neurotoxins.” The claims are broad in scope. This can be seen from Olney’s review
article, indicative of the state of the prior art at the time applicants’ invention was made,
outlining a large number of disorders “related to excitatory amino acid-induced
neurotoxicity.” See particularly Olney, pages 52 through 61, section entitled
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007