Interference No. 103,906
The starting point for interpreting language used in the
claims is the claims themselves. North Am. Vaccine, Inc., 7 F.3d
at 1575, 28 USPQ2d at 1336. Generally, words in a claim will be
given their ordinary meaning unless there is a clear indication
in the specification that the inventor intended to give those
words a special meaning. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam,
Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
Key Pharms. Inc. v. Hercon Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716-17, 48
USPQ2d 1911, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, as we already have
indicated, the disputed term in Dionne’s claims, “a viral
infection,” clearly embraces any viral infection, and it is
matched by equally broad terminology in the specification.
Further, we find nothing in the Dionne patent disclosure that
clearly indicates that Dionne intended the term to have a
narrower scope, viz. to mean only HBV and HIV-type infections.
As we have indicated, it appears that infections caused by HBV
and retroviruses such as HIV were intended to be merely exemplary
of the viral infections covered by Dionne’s disclosure. In this
regard, we note that whenever the Dionne disclosure does refer to
specific viruses it does so by employing terms (such as “for
example” and “in particular”) which are not exclusive of other
viruses.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007