Appeal 2006-2644
Application 10/047,945
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue that the previous decision erred in its interpretation
of the “free serum IgE” recited in the claims: “It appears that the decision
overlooks or misapprehends the requirement that the method of claim 9 is
directed toward the reduction of ‘free’ IgE. . . . Once bound by appellant’s
[sic] peptide, the IgE is no longer ‘free,’ although a reaction product
between appellants’ peptide and the IgE may be present” (Request for
Rehearing (“Req. Rhg.”) 2). Appellants point to the Specification’s Table 4
as support for their position: “Table 4, column LT-10 of appellants’
specification shows declining free-IgE detection as measured in saliva”
(Req. Rhg. 3).
We do not agree with Appellants’ interpretation of the claim
language. We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Specification consistently refers to
“reducing IgE”; it does not refer to “reducing IgE not bound to LT-10” or
the equivalent. For a few examples, see page 1, lines 12-13 (“treatment of
. . . elevated IgE levels . . . to reduce the level”); page 4, lines 2-3
(“reduction in IgE”, “reduce elevated IgE level”); page 5, line 10 (“LT-10
lowers IgE level”); and page 6, lines 5-6 (“Both LT-10 and Mono anti-IgE
neutralize the circulating IgE and lower the IgE level.”).
Appellants’ claim interpretation also conflicts with the basis, as we
understand it, for the Specification’s assertion that lowering IgE levels treats
certain disorders. The Specification states:
Our research further revealed that IgE is implicated in (1) Type
II diabetes (2) Depression (3) various types of Autoimmune
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013