Interference No. 103,906
Cortright is viewed by us as being consistent with a broad
construction of Dionne’s claims here, Dionne’s arguments to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Other cases relied upon by Dionne are also deemed to be
consistent with our broad claim interpretation. For instance, in
North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571,
1575-76, 28 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the claim
expression “a terminal portion” was construed to have its normal
meaning. Here, we also are ascribing a normal meaning to the
phrase “a viral infection” as in effect referring to any viral
source of mammalian infection. Here, unlike in North Am.
Vaccine, Inc., the issue is the scope of the word “viral.”
More to the point is In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1559 and
1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1511 and 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In Wright,
the claim term “a pathogenic RNA virus” was interpreted to
embrace any and all pathogenic RNA viruses.
Having made these initial observations, we now proceed with
a more detailed discussion.
I. Claim Construction
As highlighted above, we agree with Liotta that the scope of
Dionne’s claims broadly encompasses the treatment of any viral
infection in a mammal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007