Ex Parte FELDMANN et al - Page 7




               Appeal No. 2002-0253                                                                                             
               Application No. 09/093,450                                                                                       
               taught by Aggarwal.2  Thus, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that one skilled in                             
               the art would have understood the teachings of Aggarwal to be directed to the                                    
               administration of both TNF" and TNF$ antagonists for treating rheumatoid arthritis, we                           
               would still find that the patent discloses the invention set forth in claim 15.  That is, the                    
               teachings in column 7 of Aggarwal read directly on the method of treating rheumatoid                             
               arthritis comprising the administration of therapeutically-effective amounts of a TNF"                           
               antagonist.  In view of the foregoing, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would                       
               not need to choose between the two types of TNF antagonists taught by Aggarwal in                                
               order to be in possession of the claimed invention.                                                              
                      As to the alleged need to make a selection of the co-therapy; i.e., cyclosporin,                          
               we find that the teachings of Aggarwal are directed to a limited selection of anti-                              
               inflammatory agents, each one of which would be effective with the TNF antagonist.                               
               To that end, we point not only to the teachings in column 7, lines 60-63, but we also                            
               direct attention to claim 6, which indicates a preference for cyclosporin as the anti-                           
               inflammatory agent.  Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have                              
               understood the teachings of the patent as describing a method of treating rheumatoid                             
               arthritis which comprises the co-administration of cyclosporin.  We make this finding                            

                      2 The claims are directed to a method of treatment which “comprises” the                                  
               administration of a TNF" antagonist and cyclosporin.  We point out that it is well                               
               established that the term “comprising” is a term of art which opens the claim to the                             
               inclusion of other elements.  Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42                             
               USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793                                   
               F.2d 1261, 1271, 229 USPQ 805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686,                            
               210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981).                                                                                   
                                                               7                                                                





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007