Interference No. 103,605
position, as thoroughly expressed in Aggarwal’s well-reasoned
brief and reply brief, we offer the following remarks for
emphasis.
Initially, we shall briefly address three preliminary
matters which are in dispute: 1. the scope of part(b) of Yamada
claim 1; 2. the qualifications of Yamada’s declarant,
Dr. Matsushima, as an expert witness; and 3. the propriety
of combining teachings from separate priority documents.
With respect to the scope of part(b) of Yamada claim 1,
Yamada argues for a narrow interpretation limited to two specific
polypeptides where the amino acid residues added to the 155
amino acid mature human TNF polypeptide are only “Arg” or
“Val-Arg.”10 (YB-4, 15-20). On the other hand, Aggarwal argues
for a much broader interpretation where the one or two amino acid
residues added to the mature hTNF can be any one or two amino
acids from the precursor portion. (ARB 3-8, 16-17). While both
interpretations are plausible, we subscribe to Aggarwal’s
interpretation since, in our opinion, it represents the broadest
reasonable construction of the claim language in dispute for the
reasons given by Aggarwal. In so construing the claim, we are
10 Hereinafter, the 155 amino acid mature human TNF polypeptide
will be referred to in abbreviated form as “mature hTNF.”
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007