Appeal No. 1996-2229
Application 08/196,748
Söderström (U), Yoshimoto (RR), Yoshimoto (SS), or Söderström
(TT).
On consideration of the record, we reverse the examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We remand the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or, in the alternative, 35
U.S.C.
§ 103.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
As stated in Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481
U.S. 1052 (1987), the decisional process en route to a conclusion
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 begins with a key legal question -- what is
the invention claimed? The decision maker is required to view
the claimed invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim inter-
pretation, in light of the specification, claim language, other
claims, and prosecution history, is a matter of law and will
normally control the remainder of the decisional process.
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. LTC synthase, in substantially free form, having a
4
molecular weight of 18 kDa as determined on silver
stained SDS-polyacrylamide denaturing gel.
Giving that claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, we conclude that the claim is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007