WALLACH et al. V. SMITH - Page 12


               Interference No. 103,854                                                                                              


              respect to claim 7 pointing out that said claim is not limited to TBP monomers expressed on                            
              the surface of a liposome or bound thereto but, rather, it is directed to a multimer which is                          
              “encapsulated in a liposome.”  Paper No. 57, p. 4.                                                                     
                     With respect to the term “encapsulated” Wallach contends that the claim must be                                 
              interpreted in light of the specification.  Brief, p. 39.  Wallach points to col. 10, lines 12-24, of                  
              the specification which is said to disclose “that a multimer can be made by indirectly linking                         
              the monomers by being expressed on the surface of liposomes.”  Id.  Wallach argues that                                
              “[t]his is what was intended by the language of claim 7.”  Id.                                                         
                     Given the polemics over the language of claim 7, we must first decide the meaning                               
              and scope of the claim before we can determine whether the subject matter would have been                              
              obvious in view of the teachings of Utsumi.                                                                            
                     As a preliminary matter, we point out that litigation-derived testimony of an inventor                          
              and his attorney concerning claim construction is entitled to little or no probative value.                            
              Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15317, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283                                      
              (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“The testimony of an inventor is often self-serving, after-the-fact attempt to                        
              state what should have been part of his or her patent application... .”) Solomon v. Kimberly-                          
              Clark Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15317, 55 USPQ2d at 1283, quoting Bell & Howell                                      
              Document Management Prods. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701, 706, 45 USPQ2d 1033, 1038                                      
              (Fed. Cir. 1997).  See also, Roton Barrier Inc, v. The Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1126, 37                           
              USPQ2d 1816, 1826 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(“We have previously stated that an inventor’s ‘after-                               
              the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure                           
              itself’.”)  The court has stated that the reason the inventor is not competent to construe                             
              claims after a patent has been granted is because                                                                      
                             [C]ommonly the claims are drafted by the inventor’s patent solicitor and they                           

                                                                  12                                                                 


Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007