the use of the activated platelet-rich plasma applied to a wound; the claims were not limited to a
platelet-free supernatant and a carrier.

Following the Examiner's rejection of the claims, the initial application was abandoned in
favor of a related application. The new disclosure included additional information summarizing
results of clinical trials with diabetic patients. This application presented nineteen claims for
consideration, many of which were claims carried over from the original parent application.

Application claims 1-19 were thereafter cancelled and replaced with claims 20-65.
Newly presented claims 47-56 were dirccted to treatment methods involving topical application
10 tissue of material released from platelets. Thus, as shown by application claims 47-56, the
applicant continued to pursue claims directed to the use of activated platelet-rich plasma applied
toa wound, Contrary to Defendants’ argument, nothing in the prosecution history suggests that
claims 47-56 “inherently required two centrifuge cycles.” Applicant subsequently cancelled
claims 20-65 and replaced them with application claims 66-90. Claims 76-86 recited a method
for treatment of tissue “comprising applying materials released from platelets topically onto
tissue.” There was no requirement of a carrier or of a platelet-free supernatant. Thus, in
pursuing claims 76-86, the applicant did not limit itself to a platelct-free supernatant and a
carrier, ie., what Defendants call a “three centrifuge cycle.”

In a series of communications with the PTO addressing claims 76-89 and successor
claims, the applicant clarified the meaning of the phrase “materials released by platelets,” which
was later replaced by the phrase “the materials released by platelets during the platelet release
reaction.” The applicant explained that this phrase was directed to mcthods and treatments
containing all of the materials released by platelets during the platelet release reaction after
activation and not to any onc isolated component of these materials. These exchanges between

13


applicant only limits claims during prosecution by clearly disavowing claim coverage.”
Kopykake Enters. v. Lucks Co., 264 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir, 2001) (quotation omitted). Any

such disavowal, or surrender, “must be clear and unmistakable.” Anchor Wall, 340 F.3d at 1307.

Claim Terms Requiring Construction

‘The terms whose meanings ure in dispute appear in independent claims 1 and 12 of the
‘938 patent. Those claims are set forth below with the terms in dispute emphasized:

1. A process for treating damaged, live, animal tissue which comprises applying over
the damaged tissues an effective amount of a treating composition containing
the materials released by platelets during the platelet release reaction and
facilitating healing of the damaged tissue.

12. A process for treating a wound of a live animal which comprises applying over the
wound an effective amount of a treating composition containing the materials

released by platelets during the platelet release reaction and facilitating healing
of the wound.

“Effective Amount”

The term “effective amount” should be construed to mean “a sufficient amount of treating
composition to facilitate healing.” First, the language of the claim supports this conclusion. It is
a common and accepted practice to claim an invention in terms of an “effective amount” of an
ingredient or substance where the amount is not critical and those skilled in the art could
determine specific values for the amount based on the patent disclosure, See Manual af Patent
Examining Procedure § 2173.05[c]; In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re
Halleck, 422 F.2d911, 914 (C.C.P.A. 1970). ‘The ordinary meaning of “effective” is “producing

a... desired cffect.” Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 397 (1990). The Federal


Release Reaction”

The term “treating composition containing the materials released by platelets during the
platelet release reaction” should be construed to mean “a composition that has all of the various
components released by platclets during the platelct release reaction and may have other
components.” First, the language of the claim supports this conclusion. The ordinary meaning of
the term “composition” is “a product of mixing or combining various elements or ingredients.”
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 270 (1990), Courts have recognized that the
ordinary meaning of “composition” is open-ended and includes mixtures having the recited
ingredients and other substances. See e.g., Glaxo Wellcome Inc. y. Genentech, Inc., 136 F. Supp.
2d 316, 334-35 (D. Del. 2001). The term “contain” means “to have within , . . comprise,
include.” Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 282 (1990). Yhe term “include” means to
contain within as part of a whole” and “suggests the containment of somcthing as a constituent,
component, or subordinate part of a larger whole,” Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
609 (1990). Thus, the ordinary meaning of a “treating composition containing the materials
released by platelets” encompasses compositions containing substances in addition to the
materials released by platelets. The phrase does not recite a composition containing only those
materials, and claims should not be rewritten to add words not present. Panduit, 810 F.2d at
1576.

The patent specification supports the conclusion that the term should be construed as “a
composition that has all of the various components released by platelets during the platelet

release reaction and may have other components,” The specification does not demonstrate that



is apparent from the disclosed wide-ranging applicability of the invention that the effective
amount of treating composition will depend on the nature and severity of the particular wound,
the application method, the patient’s overall health, the desired rate of healing, and other factors
assessed by the treating professional. Morcover, the disclosed methods for preparing the treating
compositions of the invention involve isolating platelets from blood. The blood may be taken
from the injured animal or from another animal of the same species. The resulting platelet-rich
plasma may be further concentrated, diluted in a buffer, and/or mixed with a carrier to form a
paste. Several different activators may be used to rclease the various healing factors from the
platelets. Thus, the ‘938 patent teaches that the make-up of treating compositions made
according to the invention may vary considerably. Persons in the art would also understand that
the specific formulation of the composition may impact the preferred amount to be applied. This
provides additional evidence that the patentee did not deviate from the accustomed meaning of
“effective amount” by requiring that a particular amount of treating composition be applied
during the treatment protocol.

Finally, the prosecution history also supports the conclusion that “effective amount”
refers to an amount sufficient to facilitate healing. Application claims 20-65 were pending at one
stage of the prosecution. Those claims included several method claims dirccted to applying a
treating composition “in an amount sufficient to cause” certain claimed results relating to tissue
healing. The PTO Examiner rejected these claims over the prior art and also under 35 U.S.C.

§ 112 as non-enabled “since the dosage of active ingredients {o be used in the treatment is not sct

forth.” Claims 20-65 were then cancelled and replaced by claims 66-90. Several of the


Circuit has expressly recognized that the term “effective amount” has a customary usage of a
sufficient amount to provide the claimed result. See 3M v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1299,
1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. den., 123 S. Ct. 1779 (2003) (affirming construction of “effective
amount” to mean “a sufficient amount of the specified component to form [claimed] encapsulant
having the specified properties under the specified conditions, if any”); see also Abbott Labs. v.
Baxter Pharm. Prods., 334 F.3d 1274, 1277-78 (Fed, Cir. 2003) (customary meaning required
construing “effective amount” to mean the amount of claim Lewis acid inhibitor needed to
provide claimed result of preventing degradation of sevoflurane).

The patent specification also supports the conclusion that “effective amount” refers to “a
sufficient amount of treating composition to facilitate healing.” One skilled in the art would
understand from the specification that an effective amount of a treating composition will vary
depending on many considerations, The specification describes the complex process of tissue
healing, and explains the many platelet derived factors involved in the healing process. It
discloses that the treatment compositions of the invention are effective for many different types
of wounds, including external wounds and internal wounds. The specification also suggests that
the treating compositions of the invention may be placed over the entire wound at a relative
uniform thickness. Alternatively, sutures may be impregnated with the composition to speed
internal healing, or the compositions may be coated over implantable devices or surgical
instruments. Disclosed examples of wounds successfully treated according to the invention
include an open foot wound, a large amputation stump, and nonhealing ulcers in diabetic
patients. In each case, the treatment therapy occurred over extended periods of time. The

specification does not suggest that the amount of treating composition uscd is critical. Rather it


prohibited in claim construction. See, ¢.g., Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., 329 F.3d 823, 831
(fed. Cir. 2003); International Visual Corp., 991 F.2d at 771-72.
However, Defendants’ main argument for construing the term “effective amount” as “8-
10 ml of supernatant per gram of carrier” is the prosecution history, namely that the application
expressly defined the phrase “an effective amount” by making reference to a portion of the
specification during prosecution. But even if the applicant had made reference to the
specification for purpose of defining the phrase “an effective amount,” the passage referenced
does not support Defendants’ argument. It reads:
The resultant composition is thicker and will tend to remain in position in contact with
the wound. Debrisan brand wound dressing which contains Sepharose brand beads,
trademarks of Pharmacia Fine Chemicals, Inc. of Pitscataway, New Jersey, may be
utilized as an alternative carrier. Preferably, about 8-10 ml of supernatant per gram of
cartier is used to produce a paste. Application of the wound treating composition is by
physically applying the material over an [sic] into the wound as in applying a medicated
salve. Treatments should be repeated on a daily basis as long as the wound remains open.
A preferred treatment is to apply an approximately one mm thick dressing of the platelet
factor/carrier complex to the wound in the morning.
Most apparent is that the disclosure of using a paste containing about 8-10 ml of supematant per
gram of cartier is only a preferred composition of the paste, not the amount of its application.
See Transmatic, 53 F.3d at 1277 (“References to a preferred embodiment, such as those often
present in a specification, are not claim limitations.”), There is nothing indicating that this
particular preferred paste composition is required by the claims. Moreover, the portion of the
passage more pertinent to the claim phrase “an effective amount” of the treating composition is
the disclosure of applying “an approximately one mm thick dressing” of the composition to the

wound in the morning. But this too is expressly described us a “preferred treatment,” not a

required treatment.


ee

‘Minute Order Form (0/0477)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

——
me ssigned Ju ‘ing Judge if Other
se Magara tude James B, Zagel “than Aigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4782 DATE 3/23/2004
CASE CYTOMEDIX, INC. vs, LITTLE ROCK FOOT CLINIC, ET AL
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the panty filing the motion, ¢.,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (h) state briefly the nature
of the motiun being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

q) Qa Filed motion of | use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Qa Brief in support of motion duc

QB) Qo Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer briefdue_____

(4) g Ruling/Hearingon_ __ssetfor_ at

(8) ia} Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on__—_setfor_ at

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to) [set for/re-set for) on____—_setfor at

(1) im Triallset for/re-set forJon_ at.

(8) Qo [Bench/Jury tria]] [Hearing| held/continucd to__— at.

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CFRCP4(m) (C1 Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2)

qo) {Other docket entry] Enter memorandum opinion and order regarding claim construction,

(ii) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.J
No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required.

Doeiiment
Number)!

Notices maifed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

ov | Docketing to mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom By 9
Dw deputy’s ou
initials

Date/time received in :
central Cer e

coating deny ais



After the PTO Examiner maintained the position that “material released by platelets” was broad
enough to cover isolated PDGF, the pending claims were amended to replace that phrase with the
expression “the materials released by platelets during the platelet release reaction.” The patentee
emphasized that the substituted expression refers to “all of the various components” released and
not just “one or more of the materials rcleased.” (emphasis in original) The patentee consistently
applied this meaning to the term in distinguishing the issued claims from the prior art. The
Examiner eventually recognized this distinction, and indicated in the Notice of Allowability that
“the materials released by platelets during the platelet release reaction” referred to “materials
more complex than PDGF.” Because the patentee expressly defined the term “the materials
released by platelets during the platelet release reaction” during prosecution to require all of the
various components released, the claimed treating composition must include all of the various
released components, Honeywell Inc. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd., 298 F.3d 1317, 1323-24 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (definition of term offered duting prosecution relevant to intended meaning of term).
Defendants arguc that the term “treating composition” should be construed as the union
of a “biologically compatible mactomolecular substance” to the “platelet-free supernatant,” ie, ,
“the materials released by platelets,” and that “containing the materials released by platelets
during the platelet release reaction” should be construed to mean “platelet-free supernatant.”
However, limiting the phrases as such would contradict the ordinary meanings of the terms
“composition” and “containing,” namely that both terms are by nature open-ended and permit
inclusion of other components, ‘The patent claims nowhere indicate that platelet ghosts or other
non-rclated substances must be removed to make the compositions of the invention effective

healing agents,

11


the patentee deviated from the customary, open-ended nature of the phrase “composition
containing.” Jn the “Summary of the Invention” section, the patent emphasizes the discovery that
activated platelet-enriched plasma (“PRP”) contains platelet-derived angiogenesis factor
(“PDAF”) and growth factor (“PDGF”) which may be used to speed the healing of wounds, The
specification refers repeatedly to applying “activated PRP” to wounds as a healing agent, without
mention of removal of platelet ghosts (the residual platelet body that remains after a platelet
releases all of its alpha-granule contents during the platclet release reaction) from the activated
PRP. Also, the specification of the ‘938 patent includes the nineteen originally filed application
claims directed to treating compositions and methods for their preparation and use. Only one of
those original claims requiring isolating PDAF and PDGF from activated PRP, which further
demonstrates that the disclosed invention is not limited to using platelet derived factors isolated
from platelet ghosts. Because specification simply does not indicate that the patentee restricted
its claims to any preferred embodiment, the treating compositions of the claims are not limited to
compositions free of platelet ghosts or other non-related materials.

Finally, the prosecution history supports the construction that the treating composition
can have all of the various materials released by activated platelets. The PTO rejected
application claims on the basis of prior art references disclosing that isolated PDGF may be
beneficial in wound healing. In a Response dated November 18, 1989, the term “material
released from platelets” was distinguished from isolated growth factor as follows:

‘This phrase refers to the actual physical stuff or soup in its entirety which is released by

platelets ~ without further processing or isolation of factors contained therein. This

material is very complex, admittedly containing PDGF but also containing platelet-
derived angiogenesis factor and many other growth factors and inhibitors including

fibroplast growth factor (“FGF”), epidermal growth factor (“EGF”), TGF-d, TGF-B,
platelet factor 4, and many others.

10


substituted claims also used the “amount sufficient to cause” terminology. The patentee
responded to the Examiner’s previous objection {o that phrase under § 112 as follows:
Applicant’s invention includes the broad concept, for example, that compositions
containing substances which are chemotactic for capillary endothelial cells, particularly
the materials released trom platelets, can be applied topically to induce the formation of
capillaries for cosmetics and wound healing. This concept encompasses all dosages of
such compositions that will produce the result that applicant has discovered is achievable
by such means. Therefore, the specific dosage of such compositions is not critical to the
invention as defined by [the] claims... From the disclosure, including the examples,
those in the art will be able to determine, without undue experimentation, what dosage of
such compositions is necessary to achieve the result recited by the claims.
This response also drew the Examiner’s attention to the case Ja re Halleck, which condoned use
of the phrase “effective amount” in a growth stimulating composition for animals. 422 F.2d 911,
The response equated the phrase to the phrase “amount sufficient to cause” present in the then-
pending claims in asserting that those claims were also properly enabled without reciting a
specific dosage. The Examiner thereafter withdrew the non-enablement rejection premised on
the phrase “amount sufficient to cause.” That phrase was eventually replaced by the term
“effective amount” in the issued claims. Thus, the prosecution history confirms that the term
“cffective amount” was used in its ordinary sense to mean a sufficient amount to achieve the
claimed result of facilitating healing.
Defendants argue that the term “effective amount” should be construed to mean “8-10 ml
of supetnatant per gram of carrier.” As an initial matter, Defendants’ proposed construction
would have the phrase specify the make-up of the treating composition and the relative

proportions of its components, which is not an “amount.” Construing “effective amount” as such

would also arguably add new limitations which are not present in the claims, a practice


the patent was issued, as objective and reliable sources of the established meanings that would
have been attributed at the time to the terms of the claims by those of skill in the art. Texas
Digital Sys. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202-03 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In fact, these resources
are often considered the most meaningful in determining the ordinary meaning of claim terms.
Id. at 1203.

The patent specification is the first resource beyond the actual words of the claims
themselves to aid in claim construction. Fromson v, Anitec Printing Plates, 132 F.3d 1437, 1442
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In general, technical terms are deemed to have the same meaning in the claims
as in the body of the specification. Jd. 1 may additionally review the specification as an aid in
determining the meaning ofa claim term in the context of the entirety of the disclosed invention,
Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc. , 231 F.3d 859, 866 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In
looking to the specification, however, the claims are not limited to the embodiment(s) shown in
the specification. Anchor Wall Sys., 340 ¥.3d at 1307; Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., 53 F.3d
1270, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Similarly, other limitations appearing only in the specification
cannot be read into a claim because “the claim, not the specification, measures the invention.”
Howes v. Zircon Corp., 992 F.Supp. 957, 961 (N.D. Ill, 1998) (citing SRI Int'l v. Matsushita
Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Hach patent has a corresponding publicly available record called the prosecution history
that details the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). The prosecution
history may limit the interpretation of claim terms to exclude any interpretation that was
disclaimed during proseculion to overcome or distinguish the prior art. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at

1583. However, “unless altering claim language to escape an examiner rejection, a patent


the applicant and the Examiner show that both the applicant and Examiner understood the phrase
to have this meaning.

Furthermore, the Examiner’s statements from the Notice of Allowability show that the
Examiner allowed the claims based on this clarification of “materials released by platelets during
the platelet release reaction.” The Examiner allowed the claims because the prior art did not
show the use of all the matcrials released by activated platelets, which “are materials more
complex than PDGF” alone, The Examiner therefore allowed the claims because applicant was
not secking claim coverage of any one released factor, such as PDGF, alonc. The Examiner’s
understanding of the claims, as slated in his reasons for allowance, should be considered in
construing the claims, Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg, Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979 (7th Cir, 1999),

Significantly, the applicant made no effort to distinguish the prior art by limiting the
claims to a platelet-free supernatant and a carrier. In addition, there is no indication in the
prosecution history that the Examiner required such an implicit limitation as a condition for
allowance. The applicant cannot be said to somehow have incorporated the requirements of a
platelet-frec supernatant and a carrier.

Defendants argue that the applicant narrowed the definition of the claimed treating
composition to include only the “supernatant” remaining after a “third centrifugation cycle.”
They quote a passage from an amendment to support their argument that the applicant expressly
limited its treatment method to compositions containing the supernatant and not compositions
containing the supernatant plus additional materials. This argument, however, is not supported
by the very amendment they quote. First, the passage from the specification describing
preparation of a platclet-free supernatant was referred to by the applicant only to show that the
claims were adequately supported by the specification, and not to define the phrase now at issue.

14


applying material released from platelets topically onto tissue.” Independent claim 87 more
narrowly recited a composition comprising a carrier and the material released from platelets, and
also required that the composition be “substantially free of (i) blood or plasma contaminants and
(ii) platelet ghosts or other material found in human platclets but not released by said platelets.”
Application claim 89 recited a treatment method comprising topically applying the composition
of claim 87 onto the tissue. Application claims 76 and 87-89 were later cancelled and replaced
with claims similar to the broader claim 76, which later issued as claims | and 12. Thus, the
narrower claim scope of claims 87-89 was abandoned in favor of the broader issued claims 1-12,

which does not require the absence of non-released materials in the treating composition.

Conclusion

The term “effective amount” as used in claims 1 and 12 of the ‘938 patent means “a
sufficient amount of treating composition to facilitate healing.” The term “treating composition
containing the materials released by platelets during the platelet release reaction” as used in
claims 1 and 12 of the ‘938 patent means “a composition that has all of the various components
released by platelets during the platclet release reaction and may have other components.” Enter

opinion and order construing disputed claim terms.

ENTER:

pate: 23 uy 20g

16


language of the claim, (2) the patent’s specification, and (3) the prosecution history of the patent.
Gart, 254 F.3d at 1340; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir.
1996); Markman, 52 F.3d at 979-80. These sources are called the “intrinsic evidence,” as they
are public record available for all to consult when determining the meaning and scope of a patent
claim.'

Claim interpretation begins with the actual words of the claims. Bell Communications
Research v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619-20 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally,
the words, phrases, and terms in patent claims should receive their ordinary and accustomed
meaning. Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. y. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Hence, I
should not rewrite the claims cither by disregarding words that are present or adding others that
are not, Panduit Corp, v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1576 (Fed. Cir, 1987).
Furthermore, words not present in the claims cannot suddenly become claim limitations.
International Visual Corp. v. Crown Metal Mfg. Co., 991 F.2d 768, 771-72 (Hed, Cir. 1993),
Indeed, the strong presumption in favor of the ordinary meaning may only be overcome when the
patentee clearly sets forth a definition for claim term in the patent specification. Anchor Wall
Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir, 2003) (citing Johnson
Worldwide, 175 F.3d at 989-90), Finally, in determining the ordinary meaning of claim terms, I

may ftecly consult dictionaries, encyclopedias, or treatises that were publicly available at the time

} When the intrinsic evidence unambiguously describes the scope of a patented invention,
reliance on “extrinsic evidence,” such as expert testimony and treatises, is improper. Vitronics,
90 F.3d at 1583; Digital Biometrics v. identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In this
case, neither party claims that extrinsic evidence is needed in the claim construction.

2


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION ~
sy
CYTOMEDIX, INC., .
mar, 24 yy M
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 C 4782

Judge James B. Zagel
LITTLE ROCK FOOT CLINIC, P.A.,
MARVIN F. COHEN, R, ALEX
DELLINGER, and CALVIN P, BRITTON
I,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Cytomedix, Inc. and Defendants Little Rock Foot Clinic, P.A., Marvin F. Cohen,
R. Alex Dellinger, and Calvin P. Britton III have filed memoranda setting forth their respective
views on the proper construction of the disputed claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,165,938 (“the ‘938
patent”). The patent, entitled “Wound Healing Agents Derived From Platelets,” was filed on
November 29, 1984, and issued on November 24, 1992. The Regents of the University of
Minnesota and Curative Technologies, Inc. filed the patent application on behalf of named

inventor, David R. Knighton. Ownership was later transferred to Cytomedix.

Law Regarding Claim Construction

The object of claim construction is to determine what sometimes terse or unfamiliar
words in patent claims mean. Gart v. Logitech, inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
Markman v, Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed, Cir, 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370

(1996), The primary sources to be consulted when construing a patent claim are: (1) the


Defendants’ proposed construction is also not supported by the specification. The
specification includes the ninetcen originally filed application claims directed to treating
compositions and methods for their preparation and use. The majority of those claims described
preparation methods and resulting compositions which included platele(s as well as released
materials. Defendants attempt to suggest that the invention is limited to platelet-free
supernatants and a carrier by focusing on parts of the preparation methods described elsewhere in
the patent specification. These preparation methods, however, only serve to illustrate preferred
ways of making embodiments in accordance with the invention. The law is clear that claims are
not limited to a preferred embodiment disclosed in the specification, Transamatic, 53 F.3d at
1277. But even if the specification did contain some limitations, limitations appearing only in
the specification cannot be read into the claims. Howes, 992 F.Supp. at 961.

Finally, the prosecution history does not support the Defendants’ construction of this
term. Defendants argue that the applicant disavowed the scope of coverage of the claims directed
to the use of activated platelet-rich plasma applied to a wound. Contrary to this assertion,
however, the applicant never gave up on claims directed to the use of activated platelet-rich
plasma applied to a wound, i.¢., what Defendants call “one centrifuge cycle” claims.

The original application for the ‘938 patent contained fiftcen claims as filed, which were
directed to various treatments and methods of the invention. For example, the initial claims
covered methods for producing wound healing substances through platelet activation with
thrombin and the use of a carrier, methods for extracting PDAF and PDGF from blood, and
platelet-derived compositions for the treatment of wounds. Application claim 13 described a
treatment composition comprising PDAF and PDGF in a platelet-rich plasma also containing
thrombin. As acknowledged by Defendants, the initial claims included broad claims directed to

12


Moreover, the full text of the applicant’s remarks shows that the applicant was emphasizing an
intent to claim “all of the various components” of the materials released during the platelet
release reaction, not just “one or more of the materials released.” To further emphasize this point
and to show that the claim was adequately supported, the applicant referred to a preferred
embodiment in the specification describing the preparation of a platclet-free supernatant:
P. 5, lines 15-34 fof the specification] sct forth the procedure for preparing the materials
released by platelets. After the release reaction the platelet ghosts and fibrin are removed
by centrifugation (see p. 5, lines 24-26). The resultant “supernatant” is what is applied to
a wound in toto (see p. 5, lines 33-35). Applicant does not isolate individual factors from
this supernatant and does not otherwise process this supernatant in ways that would
affect the bioactivity of the multitude of factors contained therein. Applicant “names”
this supernatant “he materials released by platelets in the platelet release reaction”...
This phrase refers to the actual physical stuff or soup in its entirety which is released by
platelets — without further processing or isolation of factors contained therein.
(emphasis in original), Viewed in the proper context, this passage emphasized: (1) that the claim
was adequately supported by a preferred embodiment of the specification in which the materials
released by platelets were in the form of a platelet-free supernatant, (2) that the disclosed
supernatant was not further separated into isolated factors; and (3) that the specification therefore
supported a definition of the materials rcleased by platelets as all of the various components
released. The concluding sentence of the applicant's remarks reiterated the salient point that the
“material released from platelets” refers to the “actual physical stuff or soup in its entirety which
is released by platelets — without further processing or isolation of factors contained therein.” A
person of ordinary skill would not conclude from this exchange that the claims were limited to
compositions free of platelet ghosts.
furthermore, the prosecution history in its entirety shows just the opposite of what
Defendants contend. At one point during prosecution the patentee introduced independent

claims 76 and 87. Claim 76 was directed to a method for treatment of tissue “comprising

15