Appeal No. 1997-3047 Application 08/480,152 Stanley, and the decisions in these cases were consistent with each other. The facts in Lilly, however, were quite different from the facts in Stanley and Thomson-Houston. In Lilly, claim 1 of the ‘895 patent recited treating depression in humans by administering a compound within a genus which included fluoxetine hydrochloride, and claim 7 of the ‘549 patent recited administering fluoxetine hydrochloride to an animal to block serotonin uptake in the animal’s brain neurons. See Lilly, 222 F.3d at 978-79, 55 USPQ2d at 1612-13. The applications which led to the ‘895 and ‘549 patents were filed, respectively, on September 17, 1975 and March 31, 1986, and issued, respectively, on April 19, 1977 and December 2, 1986. According to the court, both claimed benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of the filing date of an application filed in 1974. See Lilly, 222 F.3d at 978-79, 55 USPQ2d at 1612-13. The court stated that “[t]hroughout the term of the ‘895 patent, by virtue of claim 1’s broad coverage, Lilly possessed the right to exclude other parties from administering any of the thousands of claimed compounds, including but not limited 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007