Appeal No. 2005-2412
Application No. 10/018,818
In resolving this question, we interpret the independent
claims on appeal as being directed to a particular shaped
container bottom in combination with a plurality of snack pieces
having certain shapes. This interpretation is consistent with
the claim language itself as well as the subject specification.
Moreover, both the appellants and the examiner have likewise
interpreted the independent claims. For analogous reasons, we
share the appellants viewpoint that it is appropriate to
interpret these claims as also requiring that the snack pieces be
vertically stacked one on another (e.g., see page 5 of the
brief). Such an interpretation is supported, for example, by the
independent claims 1 and 11 recitation that a peripheral edge of
“a lowest snack piece” of the plurality of snack pieces rests
upon the bottom panel. The examiner’s argument that these claims
are not so limited is not persuasive for the reasons explained
hereinafter.
With respect to this last mentioned point, it is the
examiner’s position that independent claim 1 is anticipated by
the combination of a container bottom with snack pieces
horizontally arranged thereon as disclosed in each of Beall ‘510
and Beall ‘485. According to the examiner, the above discussed
claim 1 feature concerning “a lowest snack piece” is satisfied by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007