Appeal No. 1997-3501
Application No. 08/253,232
Analysis begins with a key legal question ! what is the
invention claimed? Courts are required to view the claimed
invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim interpretation,
in light of the specification, claim language, other claims and
prosecution history, is a matter of law and will normally control
the remainder of the decisional process. [Footnote omitted.]
To that end, we note that during ex parte prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the
specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As background, Factor VIII is a complex of two components, Factor VIII:C and Factor VIII:
vWF (also referred to as von Willebrand Factor), each with different genetic control and
biochemical functions. Factor VIII:C serves as a coagulation promoting protein and Factor
1
VIII: vWF serves as a platelet adhesion protein. The invention of claim 24 is directed to a
process for preparation of a pasteurized and purified von Willebrand factor (vWF)
concentrate.
In claim 24, we interpret step “b) treating said solution with an anion exchanger to
which F VIII:C binds to obtain a pasteurized von Willebrand factor concentrate free of F
VIII:C;” consistent with the specification and prosecution history as meaning, “the factor VIII
binds to basic ion exchangers . . . , whereas vWF remains in solution.” Specification,
1See, e.g., U.S. Patent 4,822,472, filed May 15, 1987.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007