Appeal No. 97-4205
Application 08/562,853
visually distinct from the other panels to
prevent others from readily determining which
side to open. The omission of an element and
its function, for example to make something
less expensive to manufacture would appear
obvious to one working in this art. There
does not appear to be anything unobvious
about using the teaching of providing
adhesive for permanently securing the other
panels to the frame structure as taught by
Veenema (column 2, lines 48-68) in the
container of Luisada to provide a secure
container and also prevent the others getting
access to the container contents. [Answer,
pages 8 and 9.]
Initially, as to the examiner’s contention that the panels
of Luisada can be considered to be ?affixed permanently until
disassembled,? we observe that it is well settled that terms in a
claim should be construed in a manner consistent with the
specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845
F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, the examiner is attempting to expand the meaning to be
given to the claimed ?means for permanently securing? beyond all
reason. Contrary to the examiner’s position that Luisada’s
panels are permanently secured, Luisada expressly states that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007