Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 9
Application No. 08/090245
We also recognize appellants’ argument (Reply Brief, bridging paragraph,
pages 14-15), “the [e]xaminer assigns a meaning to the term ‘component’
contrary to the meaning accepted in the art…. References to … cellulose
acetate membranes are irrelevant in view of the disclosure in the specification.”
Appellants, however, fail to direct our attention to a particular section of their
specification that supports their argument. Nevertheless, upon review of
appellants’ specification we find (page 15), the catalytic antibodies “may be
contained in or on cells, components of cells or tissue, and may be in purified or
unpurified form.” We believe it would be fair to state that a component of a cell or
tissue is a biological molecule. In this regard we note that appellants’
specification (page 17) broadly defines “biological molecule … as a molecule
which has been constructed from the compounds from which organisms are
formed. Such compounds can be amino acids, nucleic acids, saccharides,
membrane lipids, or biological cofactors.” In our opinion, a cellulose acetate
membrane falls within the scope of this definition. Accordingly, we do not find,
and appellants have not identified, any portion of the specification which supports
appellants’ position that the examiner’s interpretation of the term “component” is
contrary to the art accepted meaning. Therefore, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ argument. Compare In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
The appellants urge us to consult the specification and some
of the cited prior art, … and interpret the disputed language more
narrowly in view thereof. When read in light of this material,
according to applicants, the “true” meaning of the phrase emerges.
We decline to attempt to harmonize the applicants’ interpretation
with the application and prior art. Such an approach puts the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007