Appeal No. 2003-1289 Page 5
Application No. 09/028,796
guides 5, which guides are of greater length than the opening 3, whereby the window 4
may be drawn aside and a body within the casket viewed. The opening 3 above the
window 4 is adapted to receive a plate (not shown) when the casket is placed in the
ground.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 5; reply brief, p. 2) that the anticipation rejection of
claims 23 and 26 based on Wible should be reversed since Wible's casket does not
include a "memorabilia compartment." We do not agree.
In our view, the claimed "memorabilia compartment" is readable on Wible's
compartment3 which is defined by opening 3 in lid 2 above window 4 as shown in
Figures 1-3 of Wible. As to the use of the adjective memorabilia to describe the
compartment, it is our determination that this adjective sets forth only a statement of
intended use and does not distinguish the structural apparatus claimed (i.e., the claimed
casket) over the casket of Wible. In that regard, the manner or method in which an
apparatus is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine
3 The examiner (answer, pp. 3-4) provides a definition for the term "compartment" which the
appellant has not contested. Accordingly, we accept that definition as the broadest reasonable meaning
of "compartment" in its ordinary usage 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007