Ex Parte Matzinger et al - Page 5


                 Appeal No.  2003-2146                                                         Page 5                  
                 Application No.  09/546,143                                                                           
                 rely on the table of contents to chapter 7 of Green3 to demonstrate that “‘amino                      
                 protecting groups’ are well-known and exemplified by many members, all of                             
                 which are within the skill of the art of organic synthesis.”  We find it noteworthy to                
                 mention that the title of this chapter (chapter 7) of Green is “Protection for The                    
                 Amino Group.”                                                                                         
                        In response, the examiner argues (Answer, page 7, emphasis removed),                           
                 “it is still unclear whether the scope of ‘amino protecting group’ includes groups                    
                 cited by Green, or goes beyond that.”  The examiner makes a similar argument                          
                 (id.) with respect to appellants’ assertion (Brief, page 4) that other patents have                   
                 issued “with the term ‘amino protecting groups’ in the claims.”  On consideration                     
                 of the record before us, we agree with appellants that the phrase “amino                              
                 protecting group” is a term of art.  Accordingly, we disagree with the examiner’s                     
                 conclusion that the phrase is indefinite to those of skill in the art.                                
                        As set forth in Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d                        
                 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991):                                                    
                        The statute requires that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one                         
                        or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the                           
                        subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”  A                               
                        decision as to whether a claim is invalid under this provision                                 
                        requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would                                
                        understand what is claimed.  See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v.                                   
                        Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641                                    
                        (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims must “reasonably apprise those skilled in                             
                        the art” as to their scope and be “as precise as the subject matter                            
                        permits.”).                                                                                    
                        Furthermore, 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                   

                                                                                                                       
                 3 Theodora W. Greene (Green), Protective Groups in Organic Synthesis, pp. 218-22, Table of            
                 Contents to Chapter 7, “Protection for The Amino Group” (John Wiley and Sons, 1981).                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007