Appeal No. 2007-1138 Application No. 10/304,918 (Fed. Cir. [1984]), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 (1984)). Although no ‘litmus test’ exists as to what effect should be accorded to words contained in a preamble, review of a patent in its entirety should be made to determine whether the inventors intended such language to represent an additional structural limitation or mere introductory language.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673-74 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, our review of the specification indicates that the phrase “orally administrable” is one that “breathes life and meaning into the claims and, hence, is a necessary limitation to them.” Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 866, 228 USPQ 90, 92 (Fed. Cir. 1984). According to the specification, the claimed medicament can be administered by any effective route (Specification 6: 17-25). Oral administration is identified as one such route (at 5: 12 to 6: 2). 24 specific oral formulations are listed in the specification (6: 29 to 9: 24). These oral formulations are used to determine the efficacy of the medicament in reducing triglycerides and weight gain (11: 25 to 13: 27). Claims are interpreted in view of the specification as they would be understood by one of skill in the art. In view of the specification, we interpret the phrase “orally administrable” to mean that the medicament is in a physical form which could be administered by mouth. PRIOR ART Perricone teaches tocotrienol or tocotrienol-enriched vitamin E in “a dermatologically acceptable carrier or vehicle” for topical application to the skin to treat radiation skin burn (Col. 3, ll. 15-51). For example: 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013