Appeal No. 2007-0091
Application No. 09/765,491
art of the scope of the invention.” Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel,
Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Here, claims 4 and 17 recite “an amount effective to inhibit
angiogenesis.” The specification defines angiogenesis as a process “through
which many tumors derive a blood supply by the generation of
microvessels” (p. 1, ll. 24-25). “Angiogenesis results primarily from the
development of new or lengthened capillaries, and larger microvessels.” (Id.
at 2, ll. 9-10.) The specification describes in vitro and in vivo tests of
antiangiogenic effectiveness. See p. 4, ll. 20-23; pp. 15-17.
We agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
reading the claims in light of the specification, would understand the claims
to require administration of one of the recited compounds in an amount
effective to inhibit the development of new or lengthened blood vessels in
the individual being treated. The absence of specific dosages of specific
compounds in the claims or specification would not prevent those skilled in
the art from understanding the scope of the claimed methods. The rejection
for indefiniteness is reversed.
3. ANTICIPATION
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Wirostko.1 The Examiner cites Wirostko as teaching that “tetracyclines are
known to have ‘collagenase inhibition properties[’] and [are] used
chronically as therapy for diverse diseases including acne rosacea (column 2,
lines 13-30).” (Answer 5.)
1 Wirostko, U.S. Patent 6,218,368, issued April 17, 2001.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013