Ex Parte CERI et al - Page 4


                  Appeal No.  2001-1173                                                           Page 4                   
                  Application No.   08/614,593                                                                             
                  inconsistency.1  Nevertheless, as set forth in In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235,                         
                  169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), 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 this regard, we note appellants’ specification                          
                  discloses (page 19):                                                                                     
                                The inventors have found that in some instances a biofilm                                  
                         will not form without the inclusion of host components in the biofilm.                            
                         Host components may therefore be added to the growth medium in                                    
                         the vessel during incubation of the bacteria to form the biofilm.                                 
                         Host components that may be added include serum protein and                                       
                         cells from a host organism.                                                                       
                  Therefore, it is our opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would                            
                  understand the term “host material” to be host organism derived components,                              
                  such as serum protein and cells, which are added to the growth medium in the                             
                  vessel during incubation of the bacteria to form a biofilm.                                              
                         Finally, the examiner is unclear as to what the “analysis determines” in                          
                  claim 14.  Answer, page 8.  We note again that the examiner fails to refer to                            
                  claim 32 that contains the same language as claim 14, but depends from claim                             
                  20 instead of claim 1.  Despite the preamble of claim 14 which states “[t]he                             
                  method of claim 1 wherein the method is used to analyze biofilm forming                                  
                  organisms that may grow in a host, and the host comprises host material, the                             
                  method further including …,” the only limitation set forth in dependent claim 14 is                      

                                                                                                                           
                  1 We recognize the examiner’s reference (Answer, page 8) to “claim 14 and all occurrences.”              
                  Apparently, the examiner would like us to guess as to whether he means “all occurrences” in              
                  claim 14, of “all occurrences” in any other claim on appeal.  We will not guess as to the                
                  examiner’s intention.  Instead, we recognize the examiner’s error in treating the claims in an           
                  inconsistent manner.                                                                                     





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007