Appeal 2007-2371
Application 10/426,654
to form a matrix structure; and administering the vaccine to a
mucosal surface.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to a method of delivering a vaccine to a
mucosal surface of a human or animal. The vaccine is first formulated by
combining an antigen with lecithin and an acrylic polymer “to form a matrix
structure.” The vaccine is then administered to a mucosal surface.
The meaning of “combined together to form a matrix structure” is
central to the disposition of this appeal.
It is well settled that “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.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). However,
“[a]bsent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only
limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those
sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed Cir. 2004). Thus, “during patent
prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized,
scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellant does not point to any dictionary meaning for the term
“matrix,” and the Specification does not define the term. However, the
Specification states that “[w]hen the acrylic polymer and lecithin are
combined, a matrix or net-like structure is formed” (Specification 12,
¶ [0055]). The Specification also states that “[e]lectron microscopic
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013