Appeal No. 2004-1206
Application No. 09/826,473
Appellants argue that Gerstner does not even mention
“transparent” inks, nor is it disclosed that at least two
transparent inks are applied directly to the outer surface of the
packaging container (Brief, page 5). Appellants’ arguments are
not persuasive. As noted by the examiner, the term “directly” as
recited in claim 16 on appeal is not limited to a paperboard
surface in contact with transparent inks (Answer, page 10).
Appellants’ specification teaches that overprinted transparent
inks may be used in combination with underlying or overlying
opaque inks as a masking layer (page 2, ll. 15-18 and 28-30; page
4, ll. 4-6; and page 5, ll. 23-24). The specification does not
define the term “directly” (specification, page 2, l. 26).
Therefore, applying the claim construction analysis as described
above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “directly” as
recited in claim 16 on appeal would include inks printed so as to
contact the outer surface and inks printed overlying a masking
layer ink on the outer surface of the substrate. See In re
Morris, supra. In view of our claim construction, we agree with
the examiner that Gerstner discloses inks which are printed in a
manner included within the scope of claim 16 on appeal.
The examiner agrees with appellants that Gerstner does not
recite that the inks are “transparent” (Answer, page 10).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007