Appeal No. 2001-2411
Application No. 08/879,422
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Words
in a claim are given their ordinary definition unless they are clearly defined
otherwise in the specification. See Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208
F.3d 1324, 1334, 54 USPQ2d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Without evidence in
the patent specification of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim
term, the term takes on its ordinary meaning.”).
The claim language at issue in this case is the limitation that the patient
has “a functional immune system.” This phrase is found in the following context:
“administering to a mammalian cancer patient with a functional immune system
an effective amount of TALL-104 cells . . . in the absence of an
immunosuppressive agent.” Thus, in the context of the claim as a whole, a
“functional immune system” is an immune system that would be suppressed by
an immunosuppressive agent, i.e., an immune system that would mount an
immune response to a foreign antigen unless such a response was
pharmacologically suppressed.
The specification sheds further light on what is meant by a “functional
immune system.” The specification distinguishes between “immunodeficient” and
“immunocompetent” murine models. See page 2. The immunodeficient murine
model used in the cited references is the SCID (severe combined
immunodeficient) mouse.1 SCID mice “lack functional T cells and B cells.” See
1 See Cesano et al., “Reversal of acute myelogenous leukemia in humanized SCID mice using a
novel adoptive transfer approach,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 94, pp. 1076-1084
(1994). This reference is cited in the specification (page 2) and was made of record in Paper No.
8, filed Nov. 10, 1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007