Appeal No. 2005-1294
Application No. 09/785,100
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding
that the prior art references teach low dept nestable
crates corresponding to the crates included in claims
1, 15, 28 and 40, except for features [crate
structures] defined by the claimed functional
limitations relating to [intended use of] bottle
carriers.
In other words, the claimed crate structures will vary depending
on the precise nature or structure of the bottle carrier
encompassed by the claims on appeal. However, as pointed out at1
pages 2 and 8 of the Decision, the claims on appeal do not limit
the structure or shape of the bottle carrier. Nor does the
specification limit the structure or shape of the bottle carrier.
See the Decision, pages 2 and 8. Thus, relying on In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), we
gave the term “bottle carrier” the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification as follows:
[T]he [claim] term “bottle carriers” encompasses a
conventional thin plastic web material having circular-
shape holes (ring carrier) for bundling and
transporting multiple bottles and/or any other bottle
carriers, including those which conform to the shapes
of the interior surfaces of the prior art crates relied
upon by the examiner. [Emphasis added].
1The appellant recognizes the importance of describing the
precise nature of the bottle carriers at page 4 of the Request
for Rehearing. However, the appellant does not recite the bottle
carrier in a precise manner. See the claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007