Appeal No. 97-4151
Application 08/379,181
construction allows the inclusion of a decorative insert in
the space between the transparent walls, and we consider that
this disclosure would have motivated one of ordinary skill to
provide the container 10 of Phibbs with transparent double
walls for the same reason. Such a modification of the Phibbs
container would not be the result of impermissible hindsight,
as argued by appellant, but would have been suggested by
Trombly's disclosure of using double walls with an insert
therebetween for the purpose of decoration.
In the reply brief, appellant contends that the Phibbs
container is not a "tabletop organizer," as recited in the
preamble of claims 1 and 11. It is not apparent how such a
recitation would limit the structure recited in the claims,
being only a statement of intended use , but in any event, the3
con-tainer 10 of Phibbs is a "tabletop organizer" in that it
is clearly capable of being placed on a table, and "organizes"
items therein in that it contains compartments into which the
items are placed, just as appellant's disclosed apparatus
does.
The preamble generally does not limit the claims. De George v.3
Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007