Appeal No. 2003-1946
Application 09/156,952
any, from perpendicular of the anti-rotation ridge lower edges
shown in Brodner’s figures 2 and 4. See In re Nehrenberg, 280
F.2d 161, 165, 126 USPQ 383, 386 (CCPA 1960) (“Substantially”, in
“substantially homogeneous and ferritic”, is a broad term.)
The appellants argue that the body in their claim 1 is a
vial body, whereas Brodner’s specimen container and sleeve are
separate bodies (reply brief, pages 2-3). A body, the appellants
argue, is “a mass of matter distinct from other masses.” See id.
When Brodner’s specimen container and sleeve are snapped together
(col. 3, lines 6-10 and 22-27) they form a mass of matter
distinct from other masses and, therefore, are a body. The
appellants argue as though a body must be a single piece having
no separable components, which is not correct. An automobile
body, for example, is an assembly of a number of parts.
Even if Brodner’s specimen container and sleeve are
considered separate bodies, Brodner would have fairly suggested
the appellants’ claimed sample vial to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Brodner’s specimen container itself has a body (18)
having an outer surface and an open end (22) opposite a closed
end (figure 2), and a cap (24) releasably engagable with the body
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007