Appeal 2006-3068
Application 10/721,299
a lid having a lip that engages over collar flange 26 (Br. 7). The Appellant argues
that Peebles’ collar ridge and collar flange are two separate structures, whereas the
Appellant’s claim 8 requires a single rim that both projects outwardly from the
tubular body and engages the lid (Reply Br. 3-4). Peebles’ collar flange 24 and
collar ridge 26 both are parts of a single rim-like top portion of the collar (Fig. 5A).
Consequently, together they reasonably can be considered a rim that projects
outwardly from the collar body (collar flange 26) and engages over the lip (collar
ridge 24).
Claim 14
The Appellant argues that without prior knowledge of the Appellant’s
claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered
Peebles’ pan or dish to be food packaging (Br. 7-8). 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). The Appellant’s Specification does not define
“food packaging”. The Specification discloses that it was known to wrap foods in
plastic packaging that tightly conforms to the exterior surface of the food product
(p. 1, ll. 9-11), but the Specification does not limit the claim term “food
packaging” to that type of package. Hence, we use the broadest relevant
customary meaning of “packaging” which is “a covering wrapper or container”.2
Peebles’ pan or dish having the lid thereon covers and contains food and, therefore,
2 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 822 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013