Appeal No. 2004-0314
Application No. 09/965,496
further object of the invention is to provide an improved cover
structure and hinging arrangement therefor by which it may be
attached in a container” (col. 1, lines 10-13), and argues that
the term “may” “provides the possibility that the cover is not
attached and therefore could not be deemed non-removable”
(answer, page 6). At approximately the time Wewetzer’s
application was filed, “may” could indicate either ability or
possibility.1 The examiner has not explained why, in view of
Wewetzer’s teaching that the parts are secured together (col. 3,
lines 56-59), one of ordinary skill in the art would have
interpreted “may be attached” as meaning that the hinged cover
possibly is attached rather than meaning that the hinging
arrangement enables the cover to be attached.
The examiner argues that even if Wewetzer’s cover is
attached, when it is attached using an adhesive it can be removed
by melting, dissolving or cutting away the adhesive, and then can
be reattached by using fresh adhesive, and when it is attached by
heat and pressure it can be removed and reattached by heating the
plastic to expand it sufficiently to permit removal and
1See Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English
Language 1517 (G. & C. Merriam Co., 2nd ed. unabridged, 1940), a
copy of which is provided to the appellant with this decision.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007