Appeal No. 1995-4525
Application No. 08/157,406
energy to penetrate the target cells. According to appellant,
the method disclosed by Miller differs from the method of
claim 3 because Miller "discloses a two-step process of
forming microdroplets and subsequently accelerating those pre-
formed microdroplets toward target cells with air pressure"
whereas "applicant's method forms drops directed toward target
cells in one step." See the Appeal Brief, page 9. Appellant
argues that the method disclosed by Miller 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 at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. 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 these microdroplets toward
the target cells with sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007