Appeal 2007-1032
Application 10/062,920
recombinant protein comprising an amino acid sequence
selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID No. 2, 4, 6, 40,
42, 44 and 46 in an amount effective to induce said immune
response against Ehrlichia canis in said subject.
Thus, claim 17 is directed to a method of inducing an immune
response against Ehrlichia canis by administering a recombinant protein
having one of seven specified amino acid sequences to a subject.
The breadth of the term “immune response” is an issue in this case.
The Examiner argues that “the Specification teaches that inducing an
immune response was intended as a means to inhibit E. canis infection”
(Answer 5). The Examiner argues that “[s]ince the Specification teaches
that inducing an immune response against E. canis is one way to inhibit
infection, the claims encompass methods of inhibiting E. canis infection”
(id. at 6, citations omitted).
Appellants argue that it is improper for the Examiner to interpret the
claims as requiring the use of the 28-kDa protein to inhibit infection (Br. 8).1
Appellants argue that “[i]t is improper for the Examiner to interpret the
claims in any way other than methods for inducing an immune response”
(id.; Reply Br. 3).
It is well settled 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.”
1 Appeal Brief filed May 19, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013