Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
We first interpret representative independent claims 1 and 11 by giving the terms thereof
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the written description in appellants’
specification, including the drawings, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this
art, without reading into these claims any limitation or particular embodiment disclosed in the
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). These claims
contain functional language in the preamble and in the body thereof in order to define certain
structure of the claimed apparatus, see generally, Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elect.
U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751, 754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Echerd, 471 F.2d 632,
634-35, 176 USPQ 321, 322 (CCPA 1973); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563,
565-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA
1971), and thus, this language must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in this respect
in light of the written description in the specification. See Morris, supra; Zletz, supra; Stencel,
supra.
Claim 1 specifies that the claimed apparatus must perform the function of meaningfully
suppressing the growth potential of any pathogen in-vivo and comprises at least (1) any source of
broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation in wavelength falling within the stated range at an
intensity sufficient for performing said function, and (2) any structure which permits
“placement” of at least any part of the apparatus “proximate to the in-vivo location of said
pathogen” in and on any “plant or plant parts” in order to perform the function thereon. We
interpret the term “pathogen” to have its ordinary meaning of any agent that causes disease,3 and
indeed, appellants disclose that “the term ‘pathogen’ includes biological substances capable of
proliferating that causes a disease in an organism” (specification, page 7, ll. 16-25). The
preambular language does not specify an organism which is the in-vivo location of the pathogen,
but is it clear from the last clause of claim 1 that the organism is any plant or parts thereof.
3 See generally, The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition 910 (Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982); Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 861
(Boston, The Riverside Publishing Company. 1984).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007