Appeal No. 2006-2041 Page 3
Application No. 10/412,336
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Platte, Sr.; claims 2
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schiemann in view
of Platte, Sr.; claims 11, 13, 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Schiemann or Platte, Sr., in view of Meisner; claim
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schiemann or Platte,
Sr., in view of Howard; and claims 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schiemann or Platte, Sr.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejections over Schiemann, alone or
in combination with other references
Schiemann discloses a single-piece, dual-chamber container
wherein each chamber has smooth curvatures from one side to the
next, between the sides and the top and bottom, and between the
top and an integral handle (figure 1).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification. See
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). Although the transitions from one to another of the
appellants’ panels and walls can be gentle curves (specification,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007