Appeal No. 98-1032
Application 08/620,658
plates 11a, 11b as seen in Figure 4. In that Monnet’s opening
7a is elongated, it may properly be considered to be a “slot”
within the broad meaning of the term. We still further find 5
that the Figures 3-4 device of Monnet reasonably appears to be
capable of the mode of operation called for in the independent
claims. That is, when the plates 11a, 11b are retracted to
uncover the opening 7a of Monnet’s Figures 3-4 device, said
opening constitutes a slot that is capable of allowing for the
introduction of soap and water into the reservoir body to
thereby provide for the production of lather within the
reservoir body for permeating the exterior surface of the
sponge 1.
Based on the above findings, we are in accord with the
examiner that Monnet discloses in Figures 3-4 a device that is
a reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the
reference disclosure. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Here, the inference is based on
the fact that the opening 7a is designed to be obturated or
closed by the plates 11a, 11b (translation, page 4, lines 7-
10).
5During patent prosecution, claims must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007