Appeal No. 1999-1423
Application 08/261,639
Brief and Reply Brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim Interpretation
Our appellate reviewing court stated in Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1567-1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987):
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed? Courts are required to view the claimed
invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim interpretation,
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. [Footnote
omitted.]
To that end, we note that during ex parte prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the
specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In the present case we interpret claim 48 as including several critical claim elements
which include a “first glycoprotein being selected from the group consisting of HIV-1
glycoprotein 41 and HIV-2 glycoprotein 36,” and that the “first glycoprotein is capable of
moving from the first matrix to the second matrix and to said point spatially separated
from the first matrix after application of the sample to the first zone”.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007