Appeal No. 97-3555 Page 6
Application No. 08/534,692
Next we turn to independent claim 1 which recites a
container for stabilizing a food dish wherein the bottom of the
food dish is suspended above the floor of the receiving shell
when seated within the receiving shell. This limitation, in our
view, "breathes life and meaning into the claim" and is
"essential to point out the invention defined by the claim." See
generally Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 155-59, 88 USPQ 478,
483-87 (CCPA 1951) and the authority cited therein, and cases
compiled in 2 Chisum, Patents § 8.06[1][d] (1991). We note that
our view is consistent with (1) the appellants' arguments that
the prior art applied under 35 U.S.C. § 103 fails to suggest this
limitation, and (2) the examiner's view that Cannell discloses
the claimed invention but for this limitation. Thus, it is our
determination that claim 1 incorporates the food dish into the
claimed subject matter and defines the metes and bounds of a
claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims
(i.e., claims 2 to 14) are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We now turn to independent claim 26 which recites a
container for stabilizing a pie tin wherein the bottom of the pie
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007