Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
the specification of the present application” (Appeal Br. 15). We agree with the
Appellant.
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not solely on
the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The customary meaning of “snap”
(noun) is “A clasp, catch, or other fastening device that operates with a snapping
sound.” (Finding of Fact 5). The Specification describes the snap fastener as
comprised of “cooperating male and female snap members 48 50” (Finding of
Fact 6). The Specification further describes that in use the female snap members
50 are pressed onto and engage respective male snap members to secure the
display face 24 to the support structure 22 (Finding of Fact 7). One having
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term “snap fasteners” when
read in light of the Specification to mean cooperating male and female members
that, when pressed together, engage each other by snapping together. The spring 6
of Boeniger is not a snap fastener within this meaning of the claim term (Finding
of Fact 8). As such, the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 15 and 20 as anticipated by Boeniger.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013