Appeal No. 2006-1354
Application No. 10/337,026
Appellants’ argument is based on the proposition that claim
10 is limited to an embodiment such as the one depicted in
appellants’ Figure 8 and therefore excludes an embodiment such
as the one depicted in Figure 9 (an embodiment similar to
Strand’s Figure 18). We disagree with this proposition.
Appellants’ Summary of Claimed Subject Matter (Brief, page
3) indicates that the scope of claim 10 is broader and is meant
to incorporate each of the embodiments depicted in appellants’
Figures 7 through 11 since the Summary refers to Figures 7
through 11 without assigning any particular embodiment to a
specific claim. This is significant because the embodiment of
Figure 9, for example, is similar to Strand’s Figure 18
embodiment as noted earlier. Furthermore, we note that claim
13, which relates to appellants’ Figure 9 embodiment, depends
from claim 10. Thus, we must conclude that the language of claim
10 requiring the sealing strip to be “joined by a frangible
connection to at least one of said walls” encompasses an
embodiment where the frangible connection is indirectly joined
to the walls as in appellants’ Figure 9 and Strand’s Figure 18.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection of claim 10 as well
claim 11, which was not separately argued.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007