Ex Parte Dey et al - Page 3


               Appeal No. 2005-0317                                                                         Page 3                  
               Application No. 09/962,352                                                                                           

                       The examiner rejected the claims as obvious in view of the Premarin® entry in the                            
               Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR).  See the Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4:                                             
                       The PDR discloses that Premarin[®] . . . contains a mixture of conjugated                                    
                       estrogens, including the recited 17α-dihydroequilin and its sulfate ester.  It                               
                       further discloses . . . that it can be used for palliation to treat prostate                                 
                       cancer and breast cancer.                                                                                    
                       Instant independent claim 13 differs over the PDR in reciting only                                           
                       17α-dihydroequilin or a sulfate or glucuronide conjugate in substantially                                    
                       purified form.  However, the instant phrase “substantially purified” and                                     
                       “comprising“ language would allow for the presence of other estrogens.                                       
                       Appellants argue that the examiner has misinterpreted the claim language.  See                               
               the Reply Brief, page 2:  “‘[S]ubstantially purified form’ as applied to the                                         
               17α-dihydroequilin or a sulfate or glucuronide conjugate thereof means substantially                                 
               free of other estrogens.”  “[W]hile the PDR teaches the administration of Premarin®,                                 
               which contains 17 α-dihydroequilin and 17α-dihydroequilin sulfate salts, the PDR does                                
               not teach that 17α-dihydroequilin or its salts are in substantially purified form, i.e.,                             
               substantially free of other estrogenic components.”  Appeal Brief, page 10.  “Thus, while                            
               the claim is open to additional steps, the step recited in the claim requires administering                          
               17α-dihydroequilin or a sulfate or glucuronide conjugate thereof in substantially purified                           
               form, not as the PDR teaches, the administration of a mixture of conjugated estrogens.”                              
               Reply Brief, pages 3-4.                                                                                              
                       We agree with Appellants’ interpretation of the claim language.  “It is axiomatic                            
               that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their                                  
               broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”  In re Sneed, 710                             
               F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  However, claims must not be                                     
               read so broadly as to vitiate an express limitation.  See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450,                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007