Appeal No. 2003-1918
Application No. 08/945,722
from the appellants’ specification. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d at 1325, 65 USPQ2d at 1393; E.I. Dupont
de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433,
7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 985
(1988). It is here appropriate to emphasize that, while claims
are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a
view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that
limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.
Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Further in this regard, our study of the subject
specification reveals that the high amylose content starch
product of the appellants’ disclosed invention is not limited to
starch in its natural state as the appellants seem to believe.
For example, page 15 of the specification contains the following
disclosure:
In yet another aspect the invention provides high (35%
or more) amylose starches which generate paste
viscosities greater than those obtained from high
amylose starches from maize plants after processing at
temperatures below 100°C. This provides the advantage
of more economical starch gelatinisation and pasting
treatments through the use of lower processing
temperatures than are currently required for high
amylose starches from maize plants.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007