Interference 103,482
In light of Kaminsky’s disclosure, Dr. Atwood opines that
persons skilled in the art could not have determined from
Dolle’s specification whether references to “isotactic
sequences” refer to average length sequences or not (RE 17).
However, Dr. Atwood does not explain why the invention
disclosed by Kaminsky and the definitions Kaminsky used in his
specification to define the subject matter he claimed would
have led the skilled artisan to interpret the subject matter
Dolle claims in a manner inapposite to the teaching of Dolle’s
specification. Dolle’s claim language is to be interpreted in
light of its supporting specification, i.e., in light of the
description of the invention in Dolle Application 08/147,006.
Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 227
USPQ 293 (Fed. Cir. 1985), instructs at 452, 227 USPQ2d at
296:
The descriptive part of the specification aids in
ascertaining the scope and meaning of the claims
inasmuch as the words of the claims must be based
upon the description. The specification is, thus,
the primary basis for construing the claims.
So long as they use words in the same way in the claims and in
the specification, inventors may be their own lexicographers.
Fonar Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 821 F.2d 627, 632, 3 USPQ2d
1109, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
80
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007