Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
view, however, appears to be bottomed upon the appellants’
belief that only the portion of Mackey's tray which is bounded
flange 18 can be considered to be the body portion. We do not
agree. As we have noted above, it is our view that the entire
lateral extent of the Mackey’s tray as depicted in Figs. 1 and
2 can be considered to form the body portion as broadly set
forth. When viewed in this context, it is readily apparent
that this body portion is “elongated.”
The appellants in the paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16
of the brief appear to be contending that the wall of Mackey’s
projections cannot be considered to be “substantially
vertical” since they are somewhat tapered. However, the
appellants have used this term to describe their own walls,
which likewise have a significant taper. This being the case,
we are of the opinion that the wall defining each of Mackey’s
projections can be considered to be “substantially vertical”
as claimed.
On page 16 of the brief, the appellants argue that under
the sixth paragraph of § 112 the functional limitations in the
claims must “be construed as covering corresponding structure
described in the specification.” We are at a complete loss to
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007