KHAVARI et al. V. TANG et al. - Page 7




             Interference No. 104,696 Paper 65                                                                             
             Khavari v. Tang Page 7                                                                                        
             its disclosed invention then there would not be interfering subject matter.' It is the claims as they         
             are, however, not the specification, that we must consider in determining the existence of an                 
             interference. In construing the claim, we may not interpolate limitations from the specification              
             absent some showing that one skilled in the art would understand the claim to include those                   
             limitations. Indeed, the Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction.                       
             Khavari's showing falls short of justifying the interpolation of additional limitations. Assuming             
             Tang's claim 167 is supported for its full scope it teaches the application of a DNA vector to                
             mammalian skin without restriction. One skilled in the art would understand that teaching to                  
             cover skin both with and without hair.                                                                        
                    The contested lack of a pretreatment limitation (absence of chemical or mechanical                     
             irritant) presents a similar problem. Since Tang claim 167 does not mention pretreatment, its                 
             plain meaning is that no pretreatment need be used, although pretreatment is not explicitly                   
             excluded. Khavari suggests that we interpolate a pretreatment requirement from the                            
             specification, but Khavari's showing does not justify that interpolation, particularly in view of the         
             Tang declaration [20051.                                                                                      
                    Khavari offers an analogy in the request for reconsideration (Paper 35 at 4-5): early                  
             package labeling for the analgesic acetaminophen lacked a warning about using acetaminophen                   
             with alcohol, although subsequently the warning was added. Khavari urges that the first warning               


             raised by motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a). (Tang did not expressly provoke this interference.) Khavari has filed a
             motion attacking the written description for Tang's claims (Paper 33), but no longer asks for that motion to be decided in
             the interference.                                                                                             
                    4 A prerequisite for the declaration of the interference is an examiner's having allowed at least one involved
             claim. 37 C.F.R. § 1.606.                                                                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007