Appeal No. 1998-2242
Application No. 08/430,937
considered as formed of one tray panel or a multitude of tray
panels. Therefore, the tray of claim 15 could be merely the
tray panel 40 disclosed in DiNicolantonio. Appellant argues
in the reply brief that the only proper interpretation of the
language of the appealed claim is that “a tray that was
comprised of only one panel would have the tray panel comprise
continuous orthogonal stiffeners which form the orthogonal
grill under the entire tray.” We agree. Inasmuch as the
claim defines a tray as comprising one or more tray panels,
the tray panel 40 of DiNicolantonio is considered a tray
consistent with the language of the claim. Additionally, we
must point out that the expression “a tray,” comprised of only
one panel is somewhat contradictory in that “comprised” is an
open-ended expression. Furthermore, while it is true that a
tray comprised of two panels would have each panel having
their required stiffeners, claim 15 has a broader scope, in
that a tray could be merely one panel. For this reason, we
affirm the § 102 rejection of claims 3, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16.
With respect to claim 4, we similarly affirm the 35
U.S.C.
§ 112 rejection of this claim, inasmuch as this claim has not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007