Interference No. 104,745
so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change. See Intellicall, Inc., v.
Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992)."). In
our view, the specification's definition of "ambient pressure" as "refer[ring] to the existing
pressure within the enclosure of the AP-MALDI apparatus" can be understood as an intent to
direct the reader's attention to the location of the ambient-pressure region of interest in Bai's sole
disclosed embodiment, which has an ionization enclosure. Nor does the fact that this sole
embodiment employs an ionization chamber constitute sufficient reason for reading the
ionization chamber into the count. See Taskett v. Dentlinger, 344 F.3d 1337, 1340, 68 USPQ2d
1472, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("According to Taskett, interpretation of the term “financial
authorization”must be limited by the specification. Though it is true that we must read a claim in
light of the specification, rarely will we limit the claim to the preferred embodiments described
in that specification. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1325,
[65 USPQ2d 1385, 1392-93] (Fed. Cir. 2003)."). Therefore, even when "atmospheric-pressure"
is construed in light of Bai's disclosure, it is evident from the disclosure and the plain meaning
of "atmospheric-pressure" that that term does not imply the presence of a surrounding enclosure.
Under these circumstances, it would be improper to consider the parties' expert testimony on this
question. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 39 USPQ2d at 1577.
In any event, we agree with Bai that assuming the Bai count alternative does require an
atmospheric-pressure ionization enclosure, this requirement would be satisfied by an
atmospheric-pressure laboratory room containing the ionization apparatus and the spectrometer.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007