Appeal No. 2002-0522 Page 7
Application No. 09/552,543
1567, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (bracketed material added by the
Lilly court).
In this case, the specification provides no “precise definition” of the genus
of endothelin antagonists recited in claim 23; as noted above, the specification
does not even mention endothelin antagonists other than those of formula I.
Therefore, the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Smythe supports the examiner’s
position in this case. The examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Summary
We agree with the examiner that the specification does not adequately
describe the composition of claim 23. We therefore affirm the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Claims 24, 26, and 27 fall with claim 23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG/dym
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007