Interference 103,579
sequence . . . SEQ ID No. 4" (Hofvander’s Claim 23); and SEQ ID
No. 5 of Hofvander’s “[i]solated potato gene coding for . . .
GBSS . . . having the nucleotide sequence stated in SEQ ID No. 5"
(Hofvander’s Claim 6).
“To ascertain the true meaning of . . . claim language,
resort should be made to the claims at issue, the specification,
and the prosecution history.” Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v.
Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1576,
24 USPQ2d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Claim interpretation
involves a review of the specification, the prosecution history,
the claims (including unasserted as well as asserted claims),
and, if necessary, other extrinsic evidence, such as expert
testimony.” Hormone Research Foundation, Inc. v. Genentech,
Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1562, 15 USPQ2d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Quoting from Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1579-80,
12 USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the court in North Am.
Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 28 USPQ2d
1333 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1069 (1994), stated
at 1575, 28 USPQ2d at 1336:
“[C]laim interpretation may be resolved as an issue of
law . . . taking into account the specification, prosecution
history or other evidence.” . . . .
In construing claims, we begin with the language of
the claims themselves. Smith-Kline Diagnostics, Inc. v.
-38-
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007