Appeal No. 2000-0859 Page 6
Application No. 08/777,668
other so that the cover 32 can be wrapped around the side wall
of the thermal bottle.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 4-5)
that claim 9 is not anticipated by Rueter. In that regard, it
is our view that the claimed term "podium" is not readable on
Rueter's thermos bottle liner system. Furthermore, the 2
claimed "means for detachably fastening said decorative panel
to said container to be flush with said platform" is not met by
Rueter for the following reasons. In order to meet a
"means-plus-function" limitation, the prior art must (1)
perform the identical function recited in the means limitation
and (2) perform that function using the structure disclosed in
the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll
Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578,
2The term "podium" must be given it the broadest
reasonable meaning as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the
appellants' specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). When that is done, it is clear that Rueter's thermos
bottle liner system does not include a "podium."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007