Appeal No. 2006-1245 Page 4
Application No. 10/294,106
and, mixtures thereof to a system containing the enzymes so as to produce the
COX2 inhibition.
16. A method for selectively inhibiting COX-2 enzyme relative to COX-1
enzyme in vivo in a mammal in need thereof which comprises providing an
effective amount of an isolated withanolide with the enzyme in the mammal so as
to produce the COX-2 inhibition.
Thus, claims 1, 3 and 5 are directed to selectively inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme
relative to the COX-1 enzyme, by administering an effective amount of one or more of
five specific withanolides. Claims 3 and 5 require the inhibition to be in vivo, the species
of inhibition elected by Appellants for prosecution, and in a mammal. Claim 3 requires
the additional presence of a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier in the therapeutic
composition.
Claim 15 is directed to inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme relative to the COX-1
enzyme, by administering an effective amount of one or more of the five withanolides
enumerated in claims 1 and 3, along with one or more of seven distinct withanolides
also enumerated in the claim.
Claim 16 is directed to inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme relative to the COX-1
enzyme, in vivo in a mammal, by administering an effective amount of an isolated
withanolide to the mammal.
All of the claims on appeal require administering “an effective amount” of the
claimed withanolides, “so as to produce the COX[-]2 inhibition.” As is evident, none of
the appealed claims recites specific empirical dosages which would guide us to a
precise meaning for the term “effective amount.” However, “[i]t is axiomatic that, in
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that claim language
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007