Appeal No. 2001-1378
Application No. 08/832,571
Examiner's Answer for the examiner=s complete reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to the appellants’ Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim Interpretation
Our appellate reviewing court stated in Pandit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1567-1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987):
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed? Courts are required to view the claimed
invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim interpretation,
in light of the specification, claim language, other claims and
prosecution history, is a matter of law and will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process. [Footnote
omitted.]
To that end, we also note that during ex parte prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the
specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 1 is directed to an isolated polynucleotide sequence comprising:
(a) a first nucleotide sequence comprising a sequence selected from the group
consisting of:
(i) a nucleotide sequence encoding the p110 of PI 3-kinase protein and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007