Appeal No. 2003-0919 Page 4
Application No. 09/463,097
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
each of the examiner's rejections.
Section 112
In our judgment, claims 1, 4 through 8, 15, and 16 set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity; and the
examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for
indefiniteness, lacks merit. We shall not belabor the record with extensive commentary
on this point, but simply refer to applicants' discussion in the Appeal Brief, page 4, with
which we agree. Additionally, the examiner does not invite attention to any language or
limitation in claims 1, 4 through 8, 15, or 16 which would give rise to a case of
indefiniteness.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
Respecting the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we
again refer to applicants' discussion in the Appeal Brief (pages 5 and 6), with which we
agree. We also find that the examiner, in setting forth this rejection, did not adequately
take into account relative teachings in the prior art. In this regard, we here reproduce
claims 21 and 22 of the Zimmerman patent:
21. A pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of tumours in warm-
blooded animals including humans, comprising, in a dose effective against
tumours, a compound of formula I according to claim 1, or a
pharmaceutically acceptable salt of such a compound having at least one
salt-forming group, together with a pharmaceutical carrier.
22. A method of treating warm-blooded animals including humans, which
comprises administering to such a warm-blooded animal suffering from a
tumoral disease a dose, effective against tumours, of a compound of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007