Appeal No. 1999-2226 Page 4
Application No. 08/582,678
We agree with the Examiner, as set out on pages 3-5 of the answer, that Murphy
substantially teaches the basic claimed process of forming a tray for the shipping of electronic
components. Upon a careful review of the reference, Murphy provides a “master frame” (i.e.,
tray 10), provides a plurality of “modules” separate from the master tray (i.e., the templates 80,
81), and “secures” the plurality of modules (templates 80, 81) in the master frame (tray 10) to
form the pack tray.
Appellant argues the claimed subject matter differs from Murphy because the templates
(e.g., 80, 81) are not secured in the master frame, that is, the tray 10 of Murphy. The Appellant's
position is that his modules are secured to and become a part of the tray. Therefore, a pivotal
consideration on this appeal is the meaning of “securing” the modules in the master frame. For
the reasons detailed below, we agree with the Examiner that neither claim 1 nor claim 21 defines
over the tray and templates of Murphy.
It is well settled that application claims, in proceedings before the USPTO, are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, we look to Appellant’s
specification for guidance in interpreting the claim language.
We find that at page 2, lines 13 and 14, of the specification, Appellant broadly discloses
“securing the plurality of modules in the master frame” and then at lines 19-22 discloses “[i]n
one fabrication process....To secure the modules in the master frame, plastic is then flowed
around the plurality of modules....” (emphasis provided). Appellant also discloses in the flow
diagram of Fig. 2, in box 26, “secure modules to master frame”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007