Appeal No. 94-1696
Application 07/811,129
According to Makgoba,
[t]hese include: (1) LB-2, a B-cell activation marker which
inhibits both B- and myeloid homotypic-cell adhesion; and
(2) 84H10, which was identified by screening for
preferential binding to myeloid leukaemic cells and
subsequently shown to inhibit the adhesion of such cells to
bone-marrow stromal cells (footnotes omitted).
In addition, antibodies specific to LFA-1 (CD11a/CD18) would have
“binding specificity for CD11a/CD18.” 4
We acknowledge that the claims should be read in light of
the prior art and the specification as they would be interpreted
by one skilled in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, supra. Yet, at the
same time, since during the prosecution of a patent application,
the claims “must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow,” our reviewing court instructs us not to read
limitations appearing in the specification into the claims. In
re Zletz, 893, F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 866-867,
228 USPQ 90, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-1405, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969) (before an
4See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), on pp. 13-14,
infra.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007