Appeal No. 1997-2512
Application No. 08/118,905
We begin our consideration of the issues before us by determining the scope of the
claimed subject matter. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030,
1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Although claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
proceedings before the PTO, the interpretation must not be inconsistent with the one that
those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d
1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, we must interpret the claims by giving words their
broadest reasonable meaning in their ordinary usage, taking into account the written
description found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claimed subject matter is directed to “[a] method of delivering an effective
amount of biological or pharmaceutical material to an animal.” As recited in claim 12
above, the method is carried out “by providing a tube containing said biological or
pharmaceutical material, which tube is sealed at its ends and is administered to an
intended cite [sic, site] of the animal by penetrating the tube at its lower section,
followed by penetrating the tube at its upper section to release the material to the
mucosal membrane of the animal.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the subject matter of
present claim 12 requires, inter alia, penetrating the tube at its lower section, followed by
penetrating the tube at its upper section, to release the material to the mucosal membrane
of the animal. According to the Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007