Ex Parte DRIEU - Page 4



              Appeal No. 2002-2228                                                               Page 4                
              Application No. 09/555,906                                                                               
              “suggestion whatsoever [in Rossi] of Applicant’s conditions being treated . . .                          
              [conditions] such as moderate to intense psychopharmacologic effects such as those                       
              listed under the marijuana heading and [psychic] excitation, euphoria or high caused by                  
              amphetamines3 or intense psychopharmacological dependency due to cocaine                                 
              addiction” (id., page 6).  As stated in In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190 USPQ 461, 463                 
              (CCPA 1976):                                                                                             
                    It is axiomatic that claims are given their broadest reasonable construction                       
                    consistent with the specification.  In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ                          
                    36 (CCPA 1974).  This complements the statutory requirement for                                    
                    particularity and distinctness (35 USC 112, second paragraph), so that an                          
                    applicant who has not clearly limited his claims is in a weak position to                          
                    assert a narrow construction.                                                                      
                                                                                                                      
              Representative claim 11 is not so narrow as appellant makes it out to be.  The claim                     
              merely requires administration of ginkgo extracts to alleviate “withdrawal symptoms of                   
              substance dependency or addiction;” it does not require alleviation of any particular                    
              symptoms of withdrawal; nor does it require treatment of withdrawal symptoms                             
              associated with any particular substance of dependency or addiction.  The art clearly                    
              establishes that the symptoms of withdrawal from alcohol and narcotics (both of which                    
              are encompassed by the specification’s definition of “a substance engendering                            
              dependency and/or addiction”) include headache, anxiety, depression and confusion,                       
              and that treatment of each of these symptoms with ginkgo biloba extracts was known.                      
                    In addition, appellant concedes that “there may be certain symptoms of                             
              withdrawal that can be found in common with other diseases,” but argues that “there is                   
              actually no reliable medicine for easing withdrawal symptoms of alcohol or drug                          
              dependency while there are other drugs treating such symptoms” (Brief, page 6).  If we                   

                    3 Rossi actually lists these as effects of using marijuana and amphetamines, not                   
              withdrawal from them (see page 1293, left-hand column, and page 1294, right-hand                         
              column).                                                                                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007