Appeal No. 95-3606
Application 07/827,691
Claim language is to be given the broadest reasonable
interpretation which is consistent with the invention
described in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The specification
here clearly states that PCR reaction mixtures which are not
substantially free of dGTP cannot reliably detect the fully
mutated fragile X gene. In the kit of Claim 42, the PCR
reaction mixtures need not be substantially free of dGTP.3
Accordingly, we hold that the examiner erred in concluding
that “Claim 42 is drawn to a kit having the reagents recited
in the method of claim 41" (Sec. Suppl. Ans., p. 2, third
para., last sentence).
2. Prior art teaching
A. Kremer
The examiner characterizes Kremer’s disclosure and
teachings as follows (Sec. Suppl. Ans., p. 3):
Kremer teaches, in Figure 1B, amplification of a
region of the FMR-1 gene, “PCR products spanning the
p(CCG)n repeat [a GC rich region] were generated.”
Kremer
also teaches using primers from the FMR-1 GC-rich fragile
3 In light of the teaching in the specification and the
scope of method Claim 41, we surmise that applicants intended to
limit the PCR reaction mixture in the kit of Claim 42 to a
reaction mixture which is substantially free of GTP and dGTP.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007