Appeal No. 2000-0894
Application No. 08/437,884
or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner construed the claimed “method of . . . preventing
cardiovascular disorders” to “requir[e] the absolute and complete elimination of
any cardiovascular disorders.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. Appellants argue
that this construction is “improper and not supported by any rule or law.” Appeal
Brief, pages 12-13.
We agree with Appellants that the examiner erred in construing the claim
language. The examiner’s interpretation of prevention to require “absolute and
complete” prevention is unreasonable. The examiner has cited no dictionary
definition, scientific treatise, or case law as the basis for interpreting a “method of
preventing” disease to require “absolute and complete” prevention of the disease.
Claim language must be interpreted in light of the specification. See In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Here, the specification states that “S-nitroso-
immunoglobulin compounds derived from the nitrosylation of immunoglobulins . .
. exert vasodilatory and platelet inhibitory effect. Thus, these compounds may be
administered as therapeutic agents, to an animal, to promote vasodilation and
platelet inhibition, and to treat or prevent cardiovascular disorders.” Page 19.
Thus, read in light of the specification, the claimed “method of . . . preventing
cardiovascular disorders” is properly interpreted to mean that the claimed method
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007