Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
propelling these microdroplets toward the target cells with
sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate the target cells.
According to appellant, the method disclosed by Mets differs
from the method of claim 3 because the former method is "a
two[-]step process of forming microdroplets and subsequently
accelerating these pre-formed microdroplets toward target
cells" whereas the latter method "simultaneously forms and
accelerates microdroplets toward target cells." See the
Appeal Brief, page 8. Appellant argues that the method
disclosed by Mets is a "two step" method compared with the
"single step" method recited in claim 3. The argument lacks
merit.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Here, we can find no limitation in claim 3 serving to
restrict appellant's method to a single step, i.e., to a one-
step process where the microdroplets are simultaneously formed
and accelerated. Rather, claim 3 "reads on" a two-step
process of (1) dispersing the liquid containing a biological
substance into microdroplets, and (2) propelling the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007