(page 20), nothing in the specification would support a
definition of "stable" in the claims as requiring stability for a
24-week period or any other particular period.
We also note that the claim otherwise requires a
"stabilizing" amount of mannitol. Various tests are described in
which varying amounts of mannitol are mixed with r-hCG. Use of
the amounts of mannitol set out in the specification presumably
would result in a "stable" composition. Hence, it can be argued
that "stable" adds nothing to the claim which is not already
there by virtue of the limitation requiring a stabilizing amount
of mannitol. Accordingly, we decline to give any weight to the
word "stable" in the preamble of claim 1. However, even if we
did give the term some weight, in light of the fact that
applicants' claim 1 is to be construed broadly consistent with
the specification, we would hold that "stable" at best would mean
that the composition is stable for any period of time.
Nothing in claim 1 requires that the liquid pharmaceutical
composition be in liquid form for any particular time. Hence,
the claim reads on lyophilized r-hCG/mannitol compositions which
have been reconstituted to liquid form just prior to
administration.
2. Prima facie obviousness
An understanding of our rationale in support of obviousness
requires, inter alia, (1) an understanding of the broad scope of
claim 1, (2) practices said to be used in the prior art and
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007