Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
Appellant’s specification discloses that
“[i]nsert 30 is provided for placing the lid (not
shown in the figure) of the package 5”. Figure 1
depicts package dispenser 5. Hence, we are not
certain as to how the lid is inserted into insert 30.
We do know that, in determining the patentability of
claims, the PTO gives claim language its “broadest
reasonable interpretation” consistent with the
specification and claims. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(citations omitted). There is a heavy presumption
that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
meaning. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
314 F.3d at 1327, 65 USPQ2d at 1394. Here, it is
therefore reasonable to interpret claim 4 as requiring
an insert into which a lid is inserted.
We find that in column 5 beginning at line 20 of
Fischer, top wall panel 18 (which is the lid for the
box depicted in figure 2 of Fischer) has tuck flaps 62
and 64 that are inserted between rear wall end flaps
38, 40 and front wall end flaps 32, 34. The area
between the rear wall end flaps 38, 40 and front wall
end flaps 32, 34 are inserts because the tuck flaps 62
and 64 are inserted therein. In this manner, lift
flap 68/overlap wall panel of dispenser 10 can be
arranged as depicted in Figure 3 of Fischer. That is,
lift flap 68/overlap wall panel of dispenser 10 is
inserted into an insert(s), which is all that is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007