Appeal No. 2004-1293
Application No. 09/989,330
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(“The PTO
broadly interprets claims during examination of a patent
application since the applicant may ‘amend his claim to obtain
protection commensurate with his actual contribution to the
art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
We are of the opinion that appealed claim 17 does not
positively require the plant display to contain “a substantially
transparent liquid” or “a live plant.” The recitations “adapted
to” and “when” clearly indicate to one skilled in the relevant
art that the use of the terms “substantially transparent liquid”
and “live plant” is merely for the purpose of defining further
functional characteristics of and relationship between the
transparent container and/or the plant receptacle.
Like the appellants’ claimed plant display, Gillinder’s
aquarium is said to comprise a fish jar or aquarium A (i.e., “a
transparent container having an inner surface defining an
interior volume adapted to be at least partially occupied by a
substantially transparent liquid”) and, disposed within the
aquarium, a plant holder C consisting of a vessel or flower pot
D and radiating arms E in which are disposed sand, stone, or
other matter as well as a plant (i.e., “a plant receptacle
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007