Appeal No. 2003-1678 Page 7
Application No. 08/722,659
injury."
A second aspect of the single step of claim 1 which needs to be addressed is the
requirement that the heparinase be intravascularly administered. Example 8 of
Zimmermann does not explicitly state how the heparinase was administered. Given the
overall procedure outlined in Example 8 of Zimmermann, it is reasonable to conclude
that the heparinase was administered intravascularly. Zimmermann describes the
administration of heparinase in that invention by means of injection or catheter. Id.,
column 11, line 61 - column 12, line 3. Appellants do not argue this as a point of
distinction between the method required by claim 1 on appeal and the method
described in Example 8 of Zimmermann. Since the same "patient" is being
administered the same active agent "heparinase" by the same mode of administration,
intravascularly, the only point of distinction would be in the amount of heparinase
administered in the respective methods. As set forth above, Zimmermann administered
100 IU-day-1 to the rabbits. Claim 1 on appeal requires a functional amount. Under
these circumstances, it is appropriate to review the written description of this application
in order to determine what finite amounts correspond to the functional amount set forth
in claim 1 on appeal. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (It was proper to review Woodruff's specification for disclosed finite
times to interpret the claim limitation requiring "for a time sufficient to inhibit the visible
birth of fungi."). A review of the specification of this application does not provide much
assistance in that it does not set forth a specific range of heparinase which will result in
an "effective amount sufficient to decrease neutrophil transmigration through activated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007