Appeal No. 2004-0551 Page 14
Application No. 09/393,256
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to the
verbiage of the claims before it the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they 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 appellant's specification. 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).
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, (1971) defines "container" as "one
which contains." The appellant's specification provides no definition or enlightenment
as to the meaning of the term "container." Accordingly, it is our determination that
"container" as used in claim 1 means "one which contains." Since Kurokawa's groove 7
does contain liquid during use, it is our conclusion that the claimed open container is
readable on Kurokawa's groove 7.
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in Kurokawa for the reasons set
forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kurokawa is affirmed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007