Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
Inc. 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and a
claim will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation,
consistent with the specification, In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). The dictionary5 contains
several definitions of the word “boss.” Consistent with
appellant’s specification, and as normally applied in a
structural sense, we consider that in the present application the
word “boss” connotes a protuberance or raised area, such as
element 61 shown in appellant’s Figure 13. On the other hand, we
do not find any dictionary definition of “boss” which would
encompass a hole, nor do we consider that, given its ordinary and
accustomed meaning, the term “boss” would be considered by one of
ordinary skill in the art to include a hole such as the hole
65 disclosed by Gelardi. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
standing rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-7, 15, 18, 21 and
25 that depend therefrom, as being anticipated by Gelardi.
Claim 20 depends indirectly from base claim 1 and adds that
the rosette has a thickness less than a thickness of the rest of
the tray. For reasons stated infra in our new rejection, we are
of the opinion that this claim limitation does not comply with
5Webster's III New Riverside University Dictionary,
copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007