Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262
width. In such circumstances, the claimed ridge width as
compared to tear line width limitation is satisfied.
Regarding the claimed “astride” limitation, as shown in
Otsuka’s Figures 4 and 5, the rib (i.e., ridge) 26 spans across
the full width of the breakage part (i.e., tear line) 16a and
extends beyond both sides of the breakage part (i.e., tear
line). Similar to the embodiment shown in Appellants’ Figure 6,
Otsuka’s rib (i.e., ridge) 26 is “astride” the breakage part
(i.e., tear line).
However, even if we take the claimed tear line to
correspond to Otsuka’s recessed region 23 as argued by
Appellants (Brief, pages 13-14), rib (i.e., ridge) 26 still
would satisfy the “astride” limitation in the sense that it
spans the entire width of the recess region 23. We observe that
the conventional definition of “astride” includes “spanning.”2
Rib (i.e., ridge) 26 spans recess region 23 because it has one
end touching one side of the recess region (i.e., the “tear
line” according to Appellants)(22a) and the other end touching
the second side of the recess region (i.e., the “tear line”
according to Appellants)(22a). (Otsuka, Figure 4).
2 Because Appellants have not defined the term “astride” in their
specification, we may look not only to the specification but also to a
dictionary to obtain the broadest reasonable meaning of the claim term.
Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303, 1324, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2005).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007