Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
The appellant argues that Reussenzehn’s handle is not
unitary with the tray because it is attached to the tray by a
nut, screw or other fastener, and that Reussenzehn would not
have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a handle
that is unitary with the tray, i.e., a handle and tray that are
one piece (brief, pages 5-8; reply brief, pages 2-9).
The appellant argues as though to meet the requirements of
the appellant’s claim 1, Reussenzehn’s handle and tray
protrusions to which it is attached must be one piece. The
appellant’s specification, however, does not define “unitary” as
requiring one piece construction.3 Hence, we use the ordinary
meaning of “unitary” (not the appellant’s argued meaning (reply
brief, pages 2-4)) which is “having the character of a unit”,
where a “unit” is “a single thing or person or group that is a
constituent of a whole”.4, ,5 6 See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
2 The rejections of claims 6, 12 and 15 over Reussenzehn, alone or in
combination with van Berkel are affirmed, but the other rejections of those
claims are reversed.
3 Moreover, claim 10, which depends from claim 1 and requires that the tray
body and handle are a single, cast piece of metal, indicates that claim 1
more broadly encompasses a tray body and handle that are not one piece.
4 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1279-80 (G. & C. Merriam Co. 1973).
5 The appellant relies upon a dictionary definition of “unitary” as
“undivided, whole” (brief, page 17; reply brief, pages 7-9), whereas the
examiner relies upon a dictionary definition of “unitary” as: “Having the
character of a unit: WHOLE”, wherein “unit” is: “1. An individual group,
structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional
constituent of a whole. 2. A group regarded as a distinct entity within a
larger group” (answer, page 12). The broadest reasonable interpretation of
“unitary” consistent with the appellant’s specification is “having the
character of a unit”. Hence, we use that definition.
6 One case relied upon by the appellant, Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs Inc., 259
F.3d 1383, 1391, 59 USPQ2d 1763, 1768 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the court stated that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007