Appeal No. 94-2097
Application 07/875,630
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hasegawa or Tompkins. Having
reviewed these references in their entireties, we find that
Hasegawa constitutes the closest prior art relied on by the
examiner. See particularly Hasegawa, column 2, lines 1
through 10. The Tompkins reference is, at best, cumulative.
Respecting the proper interpretation of appellant's
claims, we observe the following passage in In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983):
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. . . . [A]nd that claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art. [Citations omitted.]
With that principle in mind, we conclude that appellant's
claims are limited to administering interferon orally in
solution at about 0.1 to about 1.5 IU/lb of body weight per
dose per day. See the instant specification, page 11, lines 5
through 10; page 28, lines 4 through 7; page 32, lines 17
through 24; page 33, TABLE 12; and page 34, lines 3 through 9.
In our judgment, any other interpretation would be
inconsistent with the plain import of the specification.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007