Appeal 2006-3059
Application 10/293,725
(quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70
USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Appellants’ Specification uses the term “lip” only on page 2, in
paragraph [0007], describing it merely as protruding structure. Nothing in
this brief mention of the term “lip” indicates that it is used in the context of
Appellants’ invention in any manner other than its ordinary and customary
definition, namely, “anything like a lip, as in structure or in being an edge,
rim, or margin” (Webster's New World Dictionary 824 (David B. Guralnik
ed., 2nd Coll. Ed., Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984)). Either the combination of
sleeve 38 and conically-shaped depression 20, in the case of the illustrated
embodiment, or the sleeve 38 alone, in the embodiment wherein depression
20 is omitted (Hasan, col. 3, ll. 57-60), meets this definition of “lip.”
Further, in either case, the main body 12 of the plate comprises a flat section
immediately adjacent such structure responding to the “lip.”
We therefore conclude that Appellants have not demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 as anticipated by Hasan. The rejection
is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013