Appeal No. 2007-0091
Application No. 09/765,491
treatment of skin disorders selected from” a group that includes
“lymphangiogenesis.”
Based on the evidence of record, however, lymphangiogenesis does
not appear to be a skin disorder, or a disorder of any kind for that matter.
Jussila describes lymphangiogenesis as a normal process by which new
lymphatic vessels are formed (page 677). Jussila states that “[a]bnormal
function of the lymphatic vessels is implicated” in certain diseases but does
not describe lymphangiogenesis itself as a disorder in need of treatment (id.).
Likewise, in Figure 6, Jussila suggests “VEGFR-3 inhibitors” for treating
“lymphangioma” and “lymphangiosarcoma,” but not for treating
lymphangiogenesis itself.
Claims 4-6 are directed to a method of treating symptoms of various
disorders by administering certain compounds to an “individual in need of
treatment thereof.” Since lymphangiogenesis does not appear to be a skin
disorder, or any other kind of disorder in need of treatment, it is unclear
what individuals are in need of treatment for lymphangiogenesis. The
claims are indefinite because it is unclear what patient populations are
encompassed by the claimed therapeutic method.
Appellant has argued that “[l]ymphangiogenesis has been implicated
in a number of skin disorders, including Kaposi’s sarcoma . . . ,
lymphangiomas . . . , neoplasm metastasis, edema, rheumatoid arthritis, and
psoriasis.”11
11 This argument was made in a paper styled “Submission in Response to
Questions Newly Raised During Oral Argument,” which was filed after the
oral hearing in this appeal. The paper has been entered into the
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013