Appeal No. 2004-1159
Application 10/108,315
that the claim language cannot be read in a vacuum, but instead
must be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Looking to the package for retail sale
seen in Figure 4 of the present application and to the disclosure
associated therewith (specification, page 7), it is clear to us
that the examiner in formulating the present rejection has
dissected the claim language, read the claim language “package
for retail sale” in a vacuum, and clearly not read such language
in light of the specification as it would be understood and
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Monahan.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by French, we share the examiner’s
view that the vehicle cleaning kit (10) containing the items seen
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007