Appeal No. 2002-0253
Application No. 09/093,450
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Celeritas
Techs. Ltd v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In addition,
the reference must describe the invention in a manner that would sufficiently place one
of ordinary skill in the art in possession of it. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Akzo N.V. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n,
808 F.2d 1471, 1479, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S.
909 (1987).
Turning first to claim 15, we point out that said claim is directed to the treatment
of rheumatoid arthritis which comprises the use of any TNF" antagonist and
cyclosporin. Here, we agree with the examiner that Aggarwal discloses such a method
in column 7. With respect to the choice of variables concerning the disease state, we
find Aggarwal discloses that its method of treating transplantation immunity is equally
applicable to “arthritis, systemic lupus, Crohn’s disease, and other autoimmune
disorders known to those skilled in the art.” Id., col. 7, lines 9-14; see also lines 38-39.
In our view, the pointing out of three diseases from the class of autoimmune diseases
sets forth a definite and limited class.1 In re Petering, 301 F.2d at 681-682, 133 USPQ
1 We need not address the teachings of the class of autoimmune disorders as a
whole since Aggarwal has specifically pointed out that its method is applicable to the
treatment of arthritis.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007