Appeal No. 1997-4272
Application No. 08/429,053
Sequence IDs #11 or #12 and having SPS activity, i.e., a monoclonal antibody
directed against maize SPS, or (2) a monoclonal antibody directed against a
protein having the same SPS activity as that of the proteins of Sequence IDs #11
or #12, i.e., a monoclonal antibody directed against any SPS enzyme.
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (“It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification.”). Claims are construed in light of the specification and, if
applicable, the prosecution history. See Multiform Dessicants Inc. v. Medzam
Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 (Fed Cir. 1998) (“The
evolution of restrictions in the claims, in the course of examination in the PTO,
reveals how those closest to the patenting process—the inventor and the patent
examiner—viewed the subject matter.”).
Unfortunately, the instant specification is ambiguous regarding whether
claim 24 was intended to be limited to antibodies to maize SPS or was intended
to encompass antibodies to SPS enzymes from other species. The specification
states:
A subject of the invention is proteins having the activity of
saccharose phosphate synthetase (SPS).
. . .
More particularly, a subject of the invention is saccharose
phosphate synthetase and notably the saccharose phosphate
synthetase of plants.
. . .
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007