Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
original patent claim 1. Claim 16 was apparently added to delete the word
"wall" to correct the antecedent basis problem. However, it is now
indefinite what is meant by "said second wall surface extending . . . in a
direction away from said first surface of said main body."
The '595 patent discloses that in "the ordinary use state of the tray 10,
i.e., a state wherein the tray 10 is set horizontally, . . . the surface which can
be seen will be referred to as the upper surface of the tray 10, and that the
surface which cannot be seen will be referred to as the lower surface of the
tray 10" (col. 3, ll. 38-43) and that "[t]he tray 10 shown in FIG. 3 comprises
a substantially rectangular and planar main body 11" (col. 3, ll. 58-59)
having a "plurality of linear ridges 12 formed on the upper surface of the
tray main body 11" (col. 3, ll. 60-61) to form storage portions 14. The
tray 10 is "planar" because the tray is relatively thin compared to its width
and length, not because it is perfectly flat and smooth. In the limitations,
"a substantially planar main body; and a first storage portion provided on a
first surface of said main body" in claim 16, we interpret the "first surface of
said main body" to refer to the upper surface of tray 10 as seen in Figure 3,
which contains many discrete surfaces, including, for example, the claimed
"bottom surface," "first wall surface," and "second wall surface." Because
the "second wall surface" is one of the many distinct surfaces which makes
up the "first surface," the limitation of "said second wall surface extending
. . . in a direction away from said first surface of said main body" is
- 37 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013