Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
words, does a claim reasonably apprise those of skill in the art
of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Claims 9 and 15 depend from claim 1 through, among others,
claim 5. As noted above in our treatment of rejection (1),
claims 9 and 15 as a whole are directed to an “insert” attachable
to the boss (claim 1), wherein the “insert” is a rosette (claim
5) that is either “integrally molded” with the tray (claim 9), or
that may be connected to the tray by “co-molding or co-injection”
(claim 15). Consistent with the commonly accepted dictionary6
definition of the noun “insert” and with appellant’s
specification (see, for example, page 1, lines 15-22, and page
10, line 16), one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the
provision of appellant’s rosette as an “insert” to denote the
rosette as being a structural element formed separate and apart
from the tray. Moreover, consistent with appellant’s
specification (see, for example, page 1, lines 24-25, and page
11, lines 1-4), one of ordinary skill in the art would consider
the provision of appellant’s rosette as being molded, co-molded,
or co-injected with the tray to denote the rosette and the tray
6Webster's III New Riverside University Dictionary,
copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
27
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007