Interference 103,579
as SEQ ID No. 1, 2, or 3 in the case of Hofvander’s claims, or a
larger fragment of the PGBSS gene, including as a subfragment
thereof, a sequence identified as a full length PGBSS cDNA or
genomic DNA sequence in the case of Visser’s claims. We must
give the language of the parties’ claims its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the supporting disclosures.
According to the respective specifications, a gene construct
or vector “comprising” a PGBSS gene fragment selected from the
group consisting of SEQ ID No. 1, 2, or 3, or an upstream
promoter sequence and a sequence identified as SEQ ID No. 1, 2,
or 3 of Hofvander’s claims, or a gene construct “containing” a
full length PGBSS cDNA or genomic DNA sequence coding for PGBSS
in reverse orientation of Visser’s claims, does not generally
read on larger fragments of the PGBSS gene, each of which
includes as a subfragment thereof, a sequence identified as SEQ
ID No. 1, 2, or 3 or an upstream promoter sequence and a sequence
identified as SEQ ID No. 1, 2, or 3 in the case of Hofvander’s
claims, or generally read on larger fragments of the PGBSS gene
which includes as a subfragment thereof, a sequence identified as
a full length PGBSS cDNA or genomic DNA sequence in the case of
Visser’s claims. Hofvander’s specification would have led
persons having ordinary skill in the art to understand that other
sequences which are PGBSS fragments substantially larger in
size than the sequences identified as SEQ ID Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in
-52-
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007