Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Analysis
The issue involves several subissues: (1) Does claim 1, interpreted in
light of the '595 patent, require that the "edge" between the "first wall
surface" and the "second wall surface" be a physical discontinuity?; (2) Does
Brahmbhatt have a "first wall surface" and a "second wall surface"?; and
(3) Does Brahmbhatt have a "second wall surface extending upward from an
upper edge of said first wall surface"?
(1)
Patent Owners' arguments can be construed as saying that there must
be some way to identify the "edge" where one surface stops and another
surface starts, and that there is no way to identify the "edge" in Brahmbhatt
because there is no discontinuity or other indicia of a line between the two
surfaces alleged to correspond to the first and second wall surfaces. The
'595 patent describes "the upper wall surfaces 28 sharply rising from the
upper edges of the lower wall surfaces 24" (col. 5, ll. 17-18) and shows
sharp distinct boundaries 30 at the intersection between the lower first wall
surface 24 and the upper second wall surface 28 (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, this
embodiment is nonlimiting and the '595 patent does not expressly define that
a "surface" or an "edge" requires a discontinuity.
A "surface" is defined as "1: the exterior or outside of an object or
body : the outermost or uppermost boundary : one or more of the faces of a
three-dimensional thing : a plane of a solid <the uneven ~ of the earth>
<on the ~ of the water> <planks with a rough ~> <the octagonal ~s of a
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013