Appeal No. 97-2712
Application 08/285,349
the choice of a known synthetic material, such as plastic, and
the selection of the common fabrication technique of injection
molding, as being a basic and routine matter of design choice
for one having ordinary skill in the art, particularly in light
of the selection of a synthetic material in the French Patent.
Read in light of appellants’ disclosure of “containers or
buckets” (specification, page 6), we consider the recitation of9
a
“bucket” (claim 9) as broadly denoting an alternative expression
for the term “container”; this view is buttressed by the under-
lying disclosure which fails to include any defining aspects of a
bucket relative to a container. Based upon our above analysis,
we also determine that the content of claims 9 through 11 would
have been suggested by the applied evidence of obviousness.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
9In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office,
claims in an application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. Additionally,
claim language is read in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007