Appeal No. 2005-0192 Page 6
Application No. 09/809,021
Appellants point to the chromatographic procedure used by Allary and Lorne and
argue that
there is no evidence that the eluates from either Lorne or Allary’s columns
are “suitable for therapeutic purposes” according to claim 18. . . . For
example, they may contain unsuitable run-off from the SPHERODEX®
columns or unsuitable buffer ingredients. Further, there is no evidence
that the thrombin solutions in the chromatography procedure are suitably
sterilized.
Id., page 18. Appellants also point to Lorne’s disclosure that the thrombin-containing
preparation eluted from the column is subjected to two steps of dialysis or ultrafiltration
before it is in a form intended for administration to a patient. See id., paragraph bridging
pages 17 and 18.
We agree that claim 18 requires the thrombin preparation to be “suitable for
therapeutic purposes” and, therefore, the preparations disclosed by Lorne and Allary
must meet this limitation in order to anticipate the claim. However, we do not agree that
the prior art compositions fail to meet this limitation.
“It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and
that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1548, 218 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
In this case, the specification does not define (or even contain) the phrase
“suitable for therapeutic purposes.” However, the specification describes the claimed
thrombin-containing preparation as “use[ful] as local hemostatic or as component of a
tissue glue together with a fibr[in]ogen-containing component.” Page 1, paragraph
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007