Interference No. 103,906
1. A method for treating a viral infection in a mammal
comprising administering to a mammal in need thereof, an
antiviral effective amount of (-)-Cis-4-amino-5-fluoro-1-(2-
hydroxymethyl-1,3-oxathiolan-5yl)-(1H)-pyrimidin-2-one or a
pharmaceutically acceptable salt, ester or salt of an ester
thereof.
After a thorough review of the entire record in light of the
opposing positions taken by the parties in their briefs, we
conclude that Liotta’s position with regard to the enablement
issue more logically conforms with the facts and pertinent case
law on the subject than does the position taken by Dionne.
Accordingly, we conclude that Dionne’s involved claims 1-4 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of
an enabling disclosure essentially for the reasons set forth in
Liotta’s brief and the APJ’s Decision on Preliminary Motions
(pages 3-6). We present the following remarks to highlight the
reasoning upon which our conclusions are based.
Initially, we observe that Dionne’s brief and reply brief
focus almost exclusively upon claim interpretation rather than on
the factual evidence submitted by Liotta, and rely for the most
part on In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir.
1999). In our view, this focus is misdirected. Dionne would
like us to ascribe a narrow construction to the phrase “a viral
infection,” as used in the claims, so that it is limited only to
infections by HBV (hepatitis B virus) and retroviruses such as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007