Ex Parte Coleman et al - Page 6


                  Appeal No.  2005-1422                                                            Page 6                   
                  Application No.  09/997,522                                                                               
                  appellants (Brief, page 46), “the terms ‘purified’ and ‘isolated’ are not exactly the                     
                  same, and [therefore] the scope of the claims at issue differ….”                                          
                         With reference to Soukhanov, the examiner finds (Supplemental Answer,                              
                  page 20),                                                                                                 
                                Purified is a relative term, and only means ‘removed from its                               
                         natural source’, unless otherwise defined in the specification.                                    
                         [Soukhanov] … defines “isolate” as (1) to set apart from a group or                                
                         whole. (2) to place in quarantine. (3) to obtain in an uncombined                                  
                         form. (4) to render free of external influence.  [Soukhanov] …                                     
                         defined “purify” as (1) to rid of impurities. (2) to rid of foreign or                             
                         unwanted elements.  Neither “purified” nor “isolated” specifically                                 
                         mean homogeneous.  Therefore, unless otherwise defined,                                            
                         ‘isolated’ means the same as ‘purified’ [sic], and ‘isolated and                                   
                         purified’ [sic] is merely redundant.                                                               
                  According to the examiner (id.), the specification fails to define either term.                           
                         Since the specification is the same for the instant application as well as                         
                  the ‘597 patent, we understand the examiner’s assertion to be that the terms are                          
                  not defined as they relate to a polynucleotide that encodes a polypeptide                                 
                  comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 in either the instant                                   
                  specification or the ‘597 patent.  In response, appellants argue (Reply Brief, page                       
                  14, emphasis added), “the term ‘purified’ would encompass the separation of a                             
                  pre-existing object from other materials while the term ‘isolated’ could additionally                     
                  encompass the production of an object in an environment separate from other                               
                  materials.”  While appellants may have intended their claim to be read as set                             
                  forth above, appellants fail to direct our attention to any portion of their                              
                  specification, and we find none, that supports their interpretation of the claim.  35                     
                  U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph puts the burden of precise claim drafting                                  
                  squarely on the applicant.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023,                            






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007