Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
of motor 214, gear train 216, etc., for controlling movement
of the keeper to selectively engage it with the cam member.
Miilu does not disclose that the cam member is secured to a
window jamb, or that the keeper and drive means are mounted on
a window sash, but the claim does not recite that these
elements are so secured or mounted, but only that the cam
member is “for securing to the window jamb” and the keeper and
drive means are “for mounting to the window sash.” Appellant
argues that the references in the claims to the window sash
and jamb are “positive limitations as to the structure and
function of the invention” and “not simply statements of an
intended use of the product” (brief, page 11),
citing In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir.
1987). However, in Stencel, which involved a question of3
obviousness rather than anticipation, the claims (claim 1 is
reproduced) did not recite that the various elements were
“for”
3Appellant also attaches to his brief a copy of § 16A of
Landis On Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting (4th Ed. 1996),
but no decisional or other authority is cited therein, and it
is not persuasive; in fact, in the summary on page III-11,
Landis recommends inferentially claiming elements not likely
to be made and/or sold by the patentee, because “[t]his
broadens the claim scope by not including [such] elements.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007