Appeal No. 2001-2411
Application No. 08/879,422
to a mammalian patient in the absence of an immunosuppressive agent.” Id.,
pages 2-3.
Discussion
The examiner rejected all of the claims for indefiniteness, inadequate
written description, and nonenablement. Each of the rejections is based on the
same claim limitation: the limitation that the TALL-104 cells are administered to a
cancer patient “with a functional immune system.” In the examiner’s view, this
limitation renders the claims indefinite, inadequately described, and nonenabled.
We disagree.
1. Claim construction
Claim language must be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole, the
specification of which the claim is a part, and the prosecution history. See
General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1275,
23 USPQ2d 1839, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[E]ach claim is an entity which must
be considered as a whole.”) (emphasis in original); Renishaw plc v. Marposs
Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1120 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (“[A] claim must be read in view of the specification of which it is a part.”);
id. at 1249 n.3, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1121 n.3 (“Likewise, any interpretation that is
provided or disavowed in the prosecution history also shapes the claim scope.”).
In addition, “[i]t is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in
an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007