Ex parte ARUFFO et al. - Page 10




                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