Appeal 2007-2124
Application 10/175,515
hydroxide” as recited in claim 1 is properly interpreted as “a mixture of at
least two cations with surrounding shells of bound hydroxyl groups” as
defined in the Specification (Supp. Br. 8-9). They contend that Ehrhardt’s
tungsten compound does not have this structure (Supp. Br. 8-9).
The sole issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of claim 1,
particularly whether the Ehrhardt’s tungsten compound is “a substantially
non elutable inorganic layered hydroxide compound” as recited in claim 1.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During patent examination, the words in a claim must be given their
the broadest reasonable meaning “in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See
also In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2004). With this as guidance, we turn to the interpretation of claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to a rhenium-188 generator comprising an elutable
container containing “a matrix comprising a substantially non-elutable
inorganic layered hydroxide compound containing tungsten-188.” The
Specification describes on page 5 what is meant by an inorganic layered
hydroxide:
The insoluble inorganic layered hydroxides of the invention
comprises a mixture of at least two cations with surrounding
shells of bound hydroxyl groups, for example magnesium
aluminate and lithium aluminate.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013