Appeal No. 2004-1586
Application No. 10/132,863
specification into the claims on appeal for the reasons indicated
supra. To do so is to interpret the claims on appeal contrary to
the appellant’s intention as is apparent from his own statement
at page 5 of the specification as shown below:
The invention has been described in an
illustrative manner. It is to be understood that the
terminology, which has been used, is intended to be in
the nature of words of description rather than of
limitation.
Many modifications and variations of the invention
are possible in light of the above teaching.
We now turn to the examiner’s Section 102 rejection of claim
1 as anticipated by the disclosure of Kasprzycki. We note that
the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding that
Kasprzycki discloses a key chain assembly comprising a key chain
12 corresponding to the claimed key retainer and a card
18 corresponding to the claimed panel6. Compare the Answer, page
4, with the Brief, page 9-10. The appellant only appears to
6 The appellant does not dispute that the card 18 has a
plurality of sub-sections. The specification, the claim language
and the appellant’s own specimens in the application also support
the examiner’s interpretation that the card 18 described by
Kasprzycki has a plurality of sub-sections (i.e., different
printed indicia are placed on distinct locations of the card 18).
Moreover, the appellant acknowledges that the card 18 can be
punched.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007