Appeal No. 1999-2330
Application No. 08/219,200
Furthermore, claim language must be analyzed “not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that it is unclear what is meant by “B7" and by the phrase
?containing amino acid residues from about position 1 to about position 215 of the
amino acid sequence corresponding to the extracellular domain of B7 antigen because
their characteristics are ambiguous and not defined.” Answer, page 5. The examiner
suggests that “while the name itself may have some notion of the activity of the protein,
there is nothing in the claims which distinctly claims the protein and variants thereof.
Others in the field may isolate the same protein and give such an entirely different
name. Also B7 can refer to a number of distinct proteins expressed on various tissues
and in various animal species.” The examiner continues, “Claiming biochemical
molecules by a particular name given to the protein by various workers in the field fails
to distinctly claim what that protein is and what the compounds are made up of. This
language is vague and indefinite since it can encompass many different proteins and is
not apparent which particular antigen is being referred to.” Answer, page 5.
As discussed herein, we have interpreted the term ?B7" consistent with the
prosecution history and specification pages 6 and 11 as that described in Freeman
1989, which is now referred to in the art as B7-1. We find no ambiguity in its meaning,
as defined in the specification.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007