Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262
(Specification, page 14). In light of Appellants’ disclosure,
the broader interpretation of claims 19 and 20 (i.e., at most
two ridges per tear line) appears reasonable and consistent with
Appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054,
44 USPQ2d at 1027. This broader interpretation does not become
unreasonable simply because the Appellants can point to support
for their more narrow interpretation. Id., 127 F.3d at 1056,
44 USPQ2d 1029. The language of claims 19 and 20, in our
opinion, is broad enough to include each tear line having at
most two ridges. Otsuka clearly teaches embodiments wherein the
breakage parts (i.e., tear lines) have “one or more” (e.g., one
or two) ribs (i.e., ridges), which would satisfy this broader
interpretation. (English Translation, ¶¶ [0014], [0053],
[0055]).
Moreover, Otsuka teaches the number of ribs (i.e., ridges)
may be manipulated to achieve any desired rigidity and breakage
strength. (English Translation, ¶ [0055]). In view of Otsuka’s
teaching that the number of ribs (i.e., ridges) is an art
recognized result-effective variable for controlling rigidity,
it would have been obvious to optimize the number of ribs,
through routine experimentation, to achieve a desired rigidity
thereby resulting in one or two ribs (i.e., ridges) as required
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007