Interference No. 103,906
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). However, on its face, the
phrase is broader in scope and clearly embraces any viral
infection and not only those caused by HBV and retroviruses such
as HIV. The Dionne patent disclosure is consistent with this
broader construction in that it refers to the treatment of viral
infections broadly, and mentions HBV and retroviral infections
merely as exemplary (col. 1, ll. 10-11; col. 3, ll. 4-12). The
general rule is that claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Also, it is inappropriate to read limitations into the
claims which appear only in the specification. Intervet Am.,
Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474,
1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As for Dionne’s primary reliance on Cortright, we note that
the court in that case actually favored a broad construction of
the claims at issue (“restore hair growth” not limited to
producing a full head of hair) over a narrower construction
(“restore hair growth” requires return of user’s hair to its
original state, that is, a full head of hair). In this light,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007