Appeal No. 2002-1874 Page 5
Application No. 09/079,329
The specification points to Table 1 as examples of dicarbonyl structures
that can act as targets for the arginine blockers. See Specification, page 7, and
Table 1. The rejection fails to provide evidence or scientific reasoning one of
skill in the art would not expect them to be targets in the claimed method, and in
fact, fails to address the Table at all.
The examiner also appears to be concerned with the use of the term
“toxic” in the claims, asserting that the term “toxic” does not define any specific
structure or origin of the carbonyl compounds being blocked. The specification
at page 2, however, defines “toxic” carbonyl compounds as reactive carbonyl
compounds that react with native proteins to form adducts and/or cross-linked
complexes. There is no evidence of record that the skilled artisan would not
recognize reactive carbonyl compounds that are present in the blood and are
capable of reacting with D-arginine.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
Claims 47-49, 54-57 and 237-240 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter that applicant regards as the invention.
The rejection objects to the use of the term “blocking.” According to the
Answer:
The term “blocking” in the claims is a relative term which
renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear whether “blocking”
means blocking from having a certain effect, physically blocking,
chemically blocking, e.g., by forming coordinate or covalent bonds,
etc. The term is not defined by the claim, or in the art, and one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007