LEE et al v. VOGELSTEIN et al - Page 9




              Interference 104,066                                                                                       
              contends that none of Vogelstein’s claims designated as corresponding to the count                         
              anticipate or render obvious any of Lee’s claims designated as corresponding to the                        
              count, assuming Vogelstein’s claims are prior art to Lee.  However, when we make                           
              side-by-side comparisons of each of the parties claims designated as corresponding to                      
              the count, we find that Lee’s arguments lack a substantive basis.                                          
                     It is well established that claim interpretation begins with the claim language                     
              itself.  Reinshaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248, 48 USPQ2d                        
              1117, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  To that end, the words in the claims are given their                         
              ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art                          
              unless it appears from the specification that the inventor used them differently.                          
              Teleflex, Inc., v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1380                          
              (Fed. Cir. 2002); Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1298,                     
              53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of                  
              the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed”); Hechst Celanese Corp. v.                      
              BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  The                            
              specification and prosecution history of an application are considered to determine                        
              whether the inventor has given a term an unconventional meaning, or if a term is                           


              tumor of the colon,” has wild-type p53 gene function.  See the involved ‘366 application,                  
              para. 1, lines 8-10.  Thus, from the evidence of record it appears that cells which have                   
              lost p53 gene function are malignant, i.e., are cancer cells having a neoplastic                           
              phenotype; whereas, benign tumors consist of cells which have not lost p53 gene                            
              function.                                                                                                  
                     Since all of Vogelstein’s claims designated as corresponding to the count are                       
              directed to cells which have lost p53 gene function due to a mutation in a p53 gene, it                    
              reasonably follows that said cells are cancer cells.                                                       
                                                           9                                                             





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007