Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
surface 24 (id. at col. 4, ll. 27-30); a discontinuous group of selected separate
surfaces is referred to as a single "surface," e.g., the four inclined surfaces 24
around a package are claimed as a "first wall surface"; and sub-portions of a
larger surface not interrupted by any discontinuity are referred to as
"surfaces," e.g., each bottom surface 42 of the lower side storage portion 34
on the bottom of the tray (Fig. 5) is part of a larger continuous lower planar
surface. See Requester's Br. 5-7.
Requester notes that the Patent Owners complain that the Examiner's
interpretation of the term "edge" as "a line where something begins or ends"
is unreasonable (Requester's Br. 7): "Although never specifically articulated
by Appellants as such, it appears that Appellants contend that 'edge' as it is
used in the '595 patent, necessarily denotes a physical structure, and that
therefore, the Examiner's construction, which includes a boundary between
surfaces that may or may not be a physical structure, is too broad."
Requester states that the term "edge" is not expressly defined in the '595
patent, so it should be construed to include any and all dictionary definitions
that are not inconsistent with the usage of the term in the claims and
specification of the patent (id. at 8-9). Requester states that an "edge" can be
defined as "a line where something begins or ends" or as "the boundary line
of a surface or a region, a border; the region adjacent to this, a margin,"
which definitions do not require a physical structure marking a boundary
(id. at 9). For example, it is argued, the '595 patent discloses bottom
surfaces 42 on the bottom surface of the tray, which are not delineated by
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013