"then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction
because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim
limitation"); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550,
1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("A claim preamble has the import that the
claim as a whole suggests for it. Where a patentee uses the
claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed
invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage.
Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete
invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a
purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a
claim limitation." (citations omitted)).
Federal Circuit precedent also provided guidance with
respect to the construction of claims undergoing examination.
Burlington Industries v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d
1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims undergoing examination are
given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (same).
c.
In this case, we have found no definition of the term
"stable" in the specification. The specification tells us that
"[t]he main object" of applicants' invention is a pharmaceutical
composition containing hCG "stabilised" with a sugar, preferably
mannitol (page 1, lines 28-32). Although data in the
specification reports results after as long as a 24-week period
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007