Appeal No. 2000-0137 Page 8
Application No.08/646,558
uncharged, Asp is considered negatively charged, and Lys and Arg are
considered positively charged. See id.
“It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation
omitted). “[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities
should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification
imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
Thus, the claim limitation “any aromatic or hydrophobic amino acid
residue” must be read as it would be viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the
art, as broadly as is reasonable in light of the specification. At the same time, the
claims must not be construed so broadly as to abrogate an express limitation.
See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970) (“[E]very
limitation positively recited in a claim must be given effect in order to determine
what subject matter that claim defines.”); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International
Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1171, 26 USPQ2d 1018, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1993
(“[T]o construe the claims in the manner suggested by TI would read an express
limitation out of the claims. This we will not do.”).
The issue, therefore, is: how would a person of ordinary skill in the art
interpret the claims’ reference to “aromatic or hydrophobic” amino acids, in light
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007