This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: t surprisingly binds and neutralizes venom Declaration showing decreased adverse immune reactions 48 48 Example 7
s Conclusion To be determined! Federal Circuit vacates decision of the Board that affirmed the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness Remanded to the Board for evaluation of rebuttal evidence 49 49 In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 84 USPQ2d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
s Court’s Analysis The Board asserted that the declarations related only to use and expressly declined to give any meaningful consideration to them because the claims were drawn to the composition The court found that the board erred in failing to consider rebuttal evidence 50 50 Highlights and Guidance
s Do not ignore any terms in a claim Determine whether any claimed function requires or implies a structural limitation Explain how the prior art renders obvious the functional limitation, i.e. how the invention rendered obvious by the prior art is suitable for and/or capable of carrying out the claimed function
51 51 Example 8
s Claim A method for treating otopathy which comprises the topical otic administration of an amount of ofloxacin or a salt thereof effective to treat otopathy in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier to the area affected with otopathy 52 52 Example 8
s Prior Art Reference teaches lack of ototoxicity of ciprofloxacin when used to treat middle ear infections Reference teaches that ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin are both gyrase inhibitors and belong to the same family of compounds 53...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW6571 taught by Professor Abbott during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.
- Spring '10