Interference No. 103,906
According to Dionne, other issued U.S. patents have equally
broad claims relating to compositions and methods for treating
“viral infections,” but disclose or exemplify only a limited
number of treatable viruses. (DB 6-9, 18). We give this factor
little weight essentially for two reasons. First, the reliance
by Dionne on the claim breadth allowed in other patents is of
limited value since each case must be decided on its own facts.
In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502-03, 190 USPQ 214, 218 (CCPA
1976). In other words, the claim breadth allowed in other
patents relates to the extent of enablement provided by the
specification in each particular case, but has no direct bearing
on matters of claim construction. Second, as noted by Liotta, if
the meaning of a disputed claim term is clear from intrinsic
evidence alone (the claims themselves, the written description,
and the prosecution history), as we have found to be the case
here, then resort to extrinsic evidence (other issued U.S.
patents or expert testimony) is unnecessary and, in fact,
contraindicated if clearly at odds with the claim construction
mandated by the intrinsic evidence. Key Pharms., 161 F.3d at
716-17, 48 USPQ2d at 1917.
II. The Lack of Enablement Issue
It is settled that the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007