Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 7
definition.” See, e.g., Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
358 F.3d 898, 906-09, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-09 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(explaining requirement for an express disclaimer in either the
specification or prosecution history).
Concerning the separately argued Group II claims and the
representative claim 21 of that claim grouping, appellant makes
substantially similar arguments, as those discussed above with
respect to representative claim 1. In particular and with regard
to the “bottle rack” required by representative claim 21,
appellant basically maintains that the shelf-containing cabinet
of Coglin does not include “the distinct features of bottle
racks.” However, appellant has not acted as a lexicographer by
providing a restrictive definition of the claim term “bottle
rack” in their specification that structurally differentiates
representative claim 21 from Coglin’s cabinet structure. In this
regard, the wall recessed cabinet of Coglin is of a size and
shape such that the cabinet could function to store a bottle in a
horizontal position thereon. For example, Coglin teaches that
the cabinet depth exceeds the wall cavity depth (typically about
four inches) and the width of the cabinet can be such as to fit
between studs about 16-64 inches on center such that general
household items can be stored therein. See column 2, line 27
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007