United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
March 25, 2004.
CYTOMEDIX, INC., Plaintiff
LITTLE ROCK FOOT CLINIC, P.A., MARVIN F. COHEN, R. ALEX DELLINGER, and CALVIN P. BRITTON III, Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge
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
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)
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.*fn1
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. v. 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 either 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 (Fed. 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 freely consult dictionaries, encyclopedias, or treatises that were
publicly available at the time
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. Id. I may additionally review the
specification as an aid in determining the meaning of a 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 F.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)).
Each 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 prosecution 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
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 are 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.
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 of Patent Examining Procedure §
2173.05[c]; In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re
Halleck, 422 F.2d 911, 914 (C.C.P.A. 1970). The ordinary meaning of
"effective" is "producing a . . . desired effect." Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary 397 (1990). The Federal
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) (customarymeaning required
construing "effective amount" to mean the amount of claim Lewis acid
inhibitor needed to provide claimed result of preventing degradation of
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 used is critical. Rather it
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. Moreover, 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 release 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 directed 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 to be used in the treatment is
not set forth." Claims 20-65 were then cancelled and replaced by claims
66-90. Several of the
substituted claims also used the "amount sufficient to cause"
terminology. The patentee responded to the Examiner's previous objection
to 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 from 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
This response also drew the Examiner's attention to the case In 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 "effective 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 supernatant 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
prohibited in claim construction. See, e.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 carrier 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
Most apparent is that the disclosure of using a paste containing about
8-10 ml of supernatant per gram of carrier 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 as a "preferred treatment," not a
"Treating Composition Containing the Materials Released by Platelets
During the Platelet 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
platelets during the platelet 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. v. 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). The term "include"
means to contain within as part of a whole" and "suggests the containment
of something 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
the patentee deviated from the customary, open-ended nature of the phrase
"composition containing." In 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 platelet 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
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
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
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
released." (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 during prosecution
relevant to intended meaning of term).
Defendants argue that the term "treating composition" should be
construed as the union of a "biologically compatible macromolecular
substance" to the "platelet-free supernatant," i.e., "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-related substances must be removed to make
the compositions of the invention effective healing agents.
Defendants' proposed construction is also not supported by the
specification. The specification includes the nineteen 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 platelets 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.e., what Defendants
call "one centrifuge cycle" claims.
The original application for the `938 patent contained fifteen 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
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 directed to treatment
methods involving topical application to 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 to a 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 platelet-free supernatant
and a carrier, i.e., 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
methods and treatments containing all of the materials released by
platelets during the platelet release reaction after activation and not
to any one isolated component of these materials. These exchanges between
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 materials released by activated platelets, which "are
materials more complex than PDGF" alone. The Examiner therefore allowed
the claims because applicant was not seeking claim coverage of any one
released factor, such as PDGF, alone. The Examiner's understanding of the
claims, as stated 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-free 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
platelet-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.
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 platelet-free supernatant:
P. 5, lines 15-34 [of the specification] set 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 "the
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 released 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
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
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
platelets 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 1 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
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 platelet release
reaction and may have other components." Enter opinion and order
construing disputed claim terms.