Appeal 2006-3068
Application 10/721,299
The Appellant argues that the “means for attaching” means plus function
language in claim 1 requires identity of claimed function, and “[t]he Peebles
reference contains no suggestion of a food packaging closure apparatus having
identity of the claimed function of ‘attaching the body second end to packaging of
a food product’” (Br. 6). Such means include the corresponding structure
disclosed in the Appellant’s Specification and equivalents thereof. See In re
Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The
Appellant’s means for attaching the second end (34; fig. 1) to the packaging is a
snug fit between the second end and the packaging (Specification 7: 1-15).
Peebles’ engagement between the vertical portion of the collar and the side and/or
end walls of the pan or dish (col. 3, ll. 62-64) is an equivalent structure to that of
the Appellant.
The Appellant argues that Peebles’ vertical wall 42 is not an equivalent
structure because it is rigid and, therefore, does not compress the pan to which it is
attached (Reply Br. 2-3). Peebles does not state that the vertical wall is rigid. If it
is rigid, then like the Appellant’s embodiment in which the tubular body is
somewhat rigid (Specification 7: 11-15), Peebles’s vertical wall is capable of
compressing a compressible package.
Claims 7 and 8
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and requires that the tubular body has a rim
extending around the first end of the tubular body and projecting outwardly from
the tubular body’s exterior surface. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and requires
that the lid has a lip that engages over the rim of the tubular body to removably
attach the lid to the first end of the tubular body.
The Appellant argues that Peebles’ collar ridge 24 does not project
outwardly from a tubular body exterior surface, and that Peebles does not disclose
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013