Appeal 2006-3390
Application 10/441,783
1 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
2 Regarding the claims whose rejections are reversed, we need to address only
3 the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 13. Each of those claims requires a
4 guard formed as a single, unitary piece with a zipper slide.
5 Claims 1 and 13
6 Baroky discloses “a separate, readily attachable guard suitable for
7 retrofitting conventional slide fasteners, which will divert adjacent fabric material
8 away from the slider, to prevent catching and subsequent jamming as the slider is
9 moved along” (Baroky, col. 1, ll. 25-30). The guard is “a snap-on guard 1,
10 attachable to the front of the slide 2 of a conventional zipper fastener 3, which is
11 generally crescent-shaped to allow the rear inside surface to be fit about the
12 forward end 4 of the slide 2” (Baroky, col. 2, ll. 6-10).
13 The Examiner argues that Baroky’s “zipper guard can be considered as
14 being formed as a single, unitary piece with the zipper slider broadly interpreted
15 after the zipper guard is snap fitted with the slider, the end result, shown in Fig. 1
16 of Baroky, a zipper guard formed as a single unitary piece with a zipper slider”
17 (Answer 5). During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest
18 reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as the claim language
19 would have been read by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
20 Specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
21 Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
22 1983). The ordinary meaning of “unitary” is “having the character of a unit:
23 UNDIVIDED, WHOLE”.2 The Appellant’s Specification discloses that the
24 integral zipper guide and guard are “formed as a single unit” as in a one-step
2Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1279-80 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).2
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013