Appeal No. 1997-2639
Application No. 08/237,129
salt (has had the salt removed). Paper No. 26, page 1. In this respect, we remind
appellant that it is appellant’s burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present
case, appellant has failed to make the intended meaning of the term “desalted carrier” in
claim 21, explicitly clear in the specification. The legend of Lehninger, Figure 7.6,
proffered by appellant, also indicates that in dialysis procedures, the outer aqueous phase
must be replaced with distilled water several times before the concentration of small solute
particles (NaCl) in the protein solution can be reduced to a vanishingly small amount.
Thus, the dialysis procedure, while removing much of the salt present as a result of the
2
protein purification procedure, does not appear to remove all salt content.
Fohlman evidences the administration of $-taipoxin in physiological saline for the
purpose of conducting toxicity studies in mice. Fohlman, page 460, column 2, page 463
and Table 3. $-taipoxin peptide is not described per se in Fohlman. However, one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the reference to $-taipoxin in Fohlman as
describing the claimed peptide in view of the disclosure of Lind of the amino acid
2Absent an express definition of the term “desalted carrier” in the specification, the
fact that appellants may “be able to point to definitions or usages that conform to their
interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to
other sources that support its interpretation.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007