Appeal No. 2005-2235 Page 2
Application No. 09/038,894
32. A method, comprising:
assessing cell activation in a subject; and, if elevated,
administering activation lowering therapy, thereby preventing a
disease or disorder or reducing the risk of a poor outcome of a
treatment of a disease or disorder.
The examiner does not rely on prior art.
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 10-18, 32-36, 38, 41 and 42 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 which appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 32-36, 38, 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the
claimed invention.
Claims 10-18, 32-36, 38, 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable
the full scope of the claimed invention.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Definiteness:
Claims 10-18, 32-36, 38, 41 and 42 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 which appellants regard as the invention.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 6-7), the claims are unclear
with regard to the phrases “administering activation lowering therapy” and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007