Appeal 2007-2864
Application 10/747,798
examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed,
as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner cites Hay (first sheet); Lowe (first sheet); and "What is
a Dermatologist?” (third sheet), to support the interpretation of skin as
including the mucosa of the mouth and cervix (Answer 12). Appellant
responds that the Specification supports a plain and ordinary meaning of
skin distinct from mucosa. For example, Appellant cites page 3, lines 25-26,
which teaches that the “cell can be a keratinocyte, an epithelial cell, a skin
cell, a mucosal cell, or any other cell that can undergo transformation by a
papillomavirus.” That teaching from the Specification, however, does not
support Appellant’s assertion that the cells are mutually exclusive. For
example, an epithelial cell may also be a skin cell.3 Thus, we find that the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s proffered
interpretation of the term “skin,” and the rejection of claim 6 is affirmed.
As to claim 18, 33, and 54, Appellant argues that Clayman cannot
anticipate these claims as there is no express or inherent disclosure of the
claimed “douche solution.” (Br. 8.) Appellant also asserts that contrary to
the Examiner’s argument that a douche is simply a jet of liquid, “there is no
disclosure in Clayman pertaining to any jet of liquid applied to any part of
the body, vagina or otherwise.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)
3 The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines the epithelium as lining
the outer layer of the skin (epidermis), as well as the surface of most body
cavities. (epithelial, Dictionary.com. The American HeritageŽ Science
Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/epithelial (accessed: September 14, 2007)).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013