Ex parte VALLE et al - Page 10




             Appeal No.  1999-1417                                                                                    
             Application 08/268,730                                                                                   

                    With the plethora of new information about the NMDA receptor-ionophore                            
                    complex, one tends to forget that non-NMDA receptors can also mediate                             
                    excitotoxic events.  An instructive case in point is the recent evidence                          
                    implicating KA receptors in domoate poisoning in which the resultant                              
                    dementia is manifested most prominently in the elderly.  Thus, although we                        
                    know less about the physiology and makeup of non-NMDA receptors, as                               
                    new information becomes available, it will probably lead to the recognition of                    
                    new links between both NMDA and non-NMDA receptor-mediated                                        
                    processes and neuropsychiatric disorders.  It is wise, therefore, to keep an                      
                    open mind regarding the ultimate significance that can be ascribed to                             
                    excitotoxic processes in human neuropsychiatric diseases, and the promise                         
                    of anti-excitotoxic strategies for preventing such diseases.  [Olney, page 66]                    
             We agree that the in vitro and in vivo studies set forth in applicants’ specification are                
             limited in scope and insufficient to teach those skilled in the art how to use the full scope of         
             the claimed invention without undue experimentation.                                                     
                    In the Appeal Brief received October 15, 1996, page 20, second complete                           
             paragraph, applicants state that                                                                         
                    The Examiner’s attention is . . . directed to the copy of the Declaration                         
                    enclosed with the Proposed Amendment of May 4, 1994, which was                                    
                    submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 together with Attachments 1 and 2 and                           
                    Enclosures 1 and 2 of said Declaration.                                                           
             It can be seen that applicants invite attention to declaration evidence submitted in parent              
             application 07/443,657 without presenting any argument or arguments, with a reasonable                   
             degree of specificity, based on that declaration.  In this regard, applicants do not comply              
             with the pertinent regulations governing practice and procedure before the Board of Patent               
             Appeals and Interferences.  See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (1996), requiring that appellant’s brief               
             “set forth the authorities and arguments on which appellant will rely to maintain the appeal.”           

                                                         10                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007