Appeal No.2000-1098 4
Application No. 08/661,415
anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d. 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies upon a combination
of two references to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter. During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa,
537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Our construction of the subject matter defined by appellants’ claim 1 is directed to
the scope of the language, “wherein the shield is configured to substantially encapsulate the
beverage pack.” The issue at hand is directed to the scope of the aforesaid language. The
specification states that, “the present invention relates to a device for encapsulating a tea
bag within the bottom of a cup for clean, efficient disposal.” See specification, page 1, lines
13-14. The specification further states that, if the tea bag is left in the cup, the tea bag will
continue to steep causing the liquid tea to turn bitter.” See specification, page 1, lines 27-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007