Appeal 2007-0725
Reexamination Control 90/006,785
Patent 5,073,484
The method of claim 9 wherein said analyte and said reactant are ones
of a specific ligand-antiligand binding pair.
(Br. at 14 and App. 4).
IV. Legal Principles
We read the claims in view of the Specification. A limitation may not
be read into a claim from the specification, but it is appropriate to look to the
specification to define a limitation already in the claim. Elekta Instr. S.A. v.
O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307, 54 USPQ2d 1910, 1913 (Fed.
Cir. 2000).
We give the claims terms their broadest reasonable construction that is
consistent with the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Expert testimony may be submitted by affidavit in response to a
rejection. 37 CFR §1.132. However, an expert’s testimony will be given
little or no weight unless the testimony is supported by facts. In re Etter,
756 F.2d 852, 860, 225 USPQ 1, 6. Argument of counsel cannot take the
place of evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A.,
129 F.3d 588, 595, 44 USPQ2d 1609, 1615 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013