Appeal No. 2005-2350
Application No. 10/056,352
tubular container of Wijnschenk’s test tube. We disagree with
this approach principally in view of the subsequent discussion
but initially because the bottom of the carrier part 6 in
Wijnschenk’s figure 1 and 2a showings indicate that once this
carrier part 6 is attached or otherwise affixed to the bottom
dome shaped portion 3 of the test tube, the bottom surface area
7/9 becomes the bottom surface of the test tube itself.
Moreover, the claim requires initially that the bottom be
“integrated” with respect to the separately recited enclosed
sidewalls. The term “integral” covers more than a unitary
construction as is made clear in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1055, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Note also the cases
cited therein. The use of the term integral in claim 22 on
appeal clearly indicates that appellants interpret the claim to
encompass multi-piece integrated structures anyway.
On the other hand, we also do not agree with appellants’ two
major arguments presented in the principal brief on appeal. As
indicated earlier in this opinion, the outside or exterior bottom
surface of the carrier part 6 of Wijnschenk becomes the bottom
surface of the test tube to the extent it is recited in the
independent claims on appeal. It is the exterior surface of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007