Ex Parte SAMARITANI et al - Page 14



            "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