Appeal No. 97-4166
Application No. 08/478,647
particularly the case since the appellant's "substantially
vertical surface" that is radially disposed inwardly from the
container's outer surface appears to not be truly vertical
(see, e.g., Fig. 5). In this regard, it should be noted that
this radially inwardly disposed surface is depicted in Fig. 5
as closely conforming to the inwardly disposed surface 51 of
the beverage container or can 50, which surface according to
the appellant's own exhibit (the exhibit submitted with Paper
No. 19, filed on April 29, 1997) has a significant departure
from a truly vertical surface.
As to rejection (IV), the appellant urges that the
limitation of wedge should be given its "normal and accustomed
meaning," and cites a dictionary definition as authority for
the contention that a "wedge" or "wedging means" as set in
independent claims 1, 70, 81 and 86 requires "forcing or
driving (an object) into something where it is tightly held"
(request, page 3). It is, of course, true that "when
interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007