Appeal No. 96-0619
Application 08/075,409
The term “integral” means something different from “one-piece,” and includes
both homogenous and separate but joined elements, and [the] broadest reasonable
interpretation of “integral” includes components separate initially, but later joined
together. In re Miskinyar, [6 F.3d 787,] 28 USPQ2d 1789 (CFAC [sic, Fed. Cir.]
3
1993).
Since the closure of Ochs is formed from two pieces 24, 25 which are
permanently retained together by the upper portion of threads 28, the closure is therefore
“integrally” formed. [Page 4; footnote added.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. A prior art reference anticipates the subject
matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the claim (see
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Here, we find nothing in
Ochs which teaches a closure with an end wall and a generally cylindrical side wall formed
integrally therewith as expressly required by independent claims 1 and 11.
The examiner considers the members 24, 25 of Ochs to correspond to the claimed closure.
We must point out, however, that the members 24, 25 of Ochs collectively form a “composite
closure 20" (see the sentence bridging columns 4 and 5). That is, the member 25 of Ochs (the
center portion 33 of which the examiner construes as forming part of the claimed end wall) is an
“insert disk” that is an entirely separate element from the shell 24 (which includes a
3The examiner’s reliance upon this decision as “case law” in inappropriate inasmuch as it
is an unpublished decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007