The term “component” requires that other components be part of the larger system. Here, for example, a compound claimed as “represent[ing] at least one component of a signalling moiety” was found to exclude single-entity moiety arrangements. “[T]he term ‘component’ in and of itself indicates a multipart system.” It may therefore be best to avoid using the term “component” in isolation, unless the claims directly cover multiple components of a given system, in favor of more explicit designations such as “in whole or in part,” and so on.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here are directed to the use of nucleotide probes that allow a scientist to detect, monitor, localize, or isolate nucleic acids when present in extremely small quantities, as is necessary for the sequencing of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Once a probe is hybridized, a detectable signal is generated either from the label itself (referred to as “direct detection”) or from a secondary chemical agent that is bound to the label (referred to as “indirect detection”). The claims recite a compound (or set of compounds) that “represents at least one component of a signalling moiety capable of producing a detectable signal.”
Issue(s): Whether the “at least one component” covers a corresponding single-entity moiety consisting only of the claimed compound, such that the compound itself can be capable of producing the detectable signal and the claims will cover direct detection.
Holding(s): No. “[T]he phrase ‘at least one component of a signalling moiety’ indicates that the signalling moiety is composed of multiple parts as the term ‘component’ in and of itself indicates a multipart system. Thus, construing the phrase to allow for a single-component system, as the district court did here, would read out the phrase ‘component of a signalling moiety’ and would thus impermissibly broaden the claim.”