Appeal 2007-1032
Application 10/062,920
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citation omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that the Specification discusses using the
28 kDa protein to induce an immune response to E. canis in the context of
inhibiting E. canis infection (Specification 8, 31). Claim 17, however,
requires only that the designated protein be “administer[ed] . . . in an amount
effective to induce said immune response against Ehrlichia canis in said
subject.” Thus, by its language, claim 17 does not require inducing an
immune response that will prevent E. canis infection.
Moreover, it is improper to read limitations from the Specification
into the claims. See Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581, 6 USPQ2d
2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[W]hile it is true that claims are to be
interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the
invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be
read into the claims.”); see also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into
the claims from the specification.”). We therefore interpret claim 17 as
encompassing processes that induce any degree of immune response to E.
canis.
2. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Norio Ohashi et al., Cloning and Characterization of Multigenes
Encoding the Immunodominant 30-Kilodalton Major Outer Membrane
Proteins of Ehrlichia canis and Application of the Recombinant Protein for
Serodiagnosis, 36 J. Clin. Microbiol. 2671-2680 (Sept. 1998).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013