Appeal No. 2002-1740
Application No. 08/447,398
commonly termed EP.” Specification, pages 18-19. “Solubilized extracellular products
in the dialyzed fractions are then purified to substantial homogeneity using suitable
chromatographic techniques as known in the art.” Id. Such procedure results in
fourteen individual proteinaceous major extracellular proteins ranging from 110 kD to 12
kD. Specification, page 19.
The immunoprotective products may be chemically synthesized using known
techniques or directly expressed in host cells. “Whatever production source is
employed, the immunogenic components may be separated and subsequently
formulated into deliverable vaccines using common biochemical procedures such as
fractionation, chromatography or other purification methodology and conventional
formulation techniques or directly expressed in host cells containing directly introduced
genetic constructs encoding therefor.” Specification, page 18.
Claim Interpretation
Our appellate reviewing court stated in Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1567-1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987):
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed? Courts are required to view the claimed
invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim interpretation,
in light of the specification, claim language, other claims and
prosecution history, is a matter of law and will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process. [Footnote
omitted.]
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007