Appeal No. 97-3661
Application No. 08/456,692
walls of claim 38 and the form of claim 42. As far as the
limitation that the funnel be of a “unitary one-piece continuous
construction” is concerned, we agree that it is not explicitly
found in Melvin. Melvin does suggest, however, that the funnel
be made of plastic (column 2, line 62), and that mouth and the
spout be “integral” (column 2, lines 49-50). It is our opinion
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to make the Melvin funnel of unitary one-piece continuous
construction for the self-evident advantages thereof, which would
have been known to the artisan working in this field, such as
ease of molding, strength and smoothness. Suggestion is found in
the common knowledge and common sense that should be accorded to
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bozek, supra.
As for claims 24, 29, 34, 39 and 43, we first point out that
during examination before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
pending claims in an application must be interpreted as broadly
as their terms reasonably allow, without reading any limitations
from the specification into the claims (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), for if the
limitations in the specification were required to be read into
the claims there would be no need for claims and no basis for the
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that the specification conclude
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007