Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 14
Application No. 08/541,013
Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043, 25
USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
From our review of the record in the application, the
examiner never specifically found that the structure of Holmes
(e.g., the ridge 40d of trigger 40) corresponding to the
recited means (i.e., "means for latching . . .") was
equivalent to the structure disclosed by the appellants (e.g.,
the latch pin 104 and biasing spring 106). Moreover, the
examiner never applied any of the above-noted indicia to
support a conclusion that the structure of Holmes (e.g., the
ridge 40d of trigger 40) is or is not an "equivalent" of the
structure disclosed by the appellants in the context of 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Thus, it is our view that the
examiner has not met the burden of establishing a case of
anticipation since the examiner has not established the
structure of Holmes (e.g., the ridge 40d of trigger 40) is an
"equivalent" of the structure disclosed by the appellants.
In any event, in applying the above-noted tests for
determining equivalence under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007