Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 6
that a bottle cork can remain in contact with a stored liquid
(wine) within the bottle. Here, the examiner has reasonably
determined that the shelved storage cabinet of Coglin presents a
structure that the claim 1 language reads on. See, e.g., column
2, lines 27-30, column 3, lines 20-50 and column 4, lines 17-61
of Coglin.
Appellant argues that the shelves of the Coglin cabinet are
flat and would not provide a cradling function. However,
representative claim 1 is not limited to a “non-flat” wine
cradle.2 As our reviewing court stated in In re Bigio, F.3d
; 72 USPQ2d 209, 211 (Fed. Cir. 2004), “Nevertheless, this
court counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad
claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution
history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader
2 See pages 323 and 968 of Webster's II New Riverside
University Dictionary (New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1984) and
the dictionary page referred to by appellants at page 1 of the
reply brief for definitions of cradle and rack that are consonant
with the examiner’s view that the shelved storage cabinet of
Coglin meets the structure (framework or stand) for supporting a
wine bottle as required by representative claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007