Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 15
Application No. 08/541,013
§ 112 to ascertain whether 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, we conclude that the
structure of Holmes is not an "equivalent" of the structure
disclosed by the appellants. In that regard, it is clear to
us that the structure of Holmes does not perform the function
specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and does
not produce substantially the same result as the corresponding
elements disclosed by the appellants. Furthermore, it is our
view that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
recognized the interchangeability of the elements shown in the
prior art for the corresponding elements disclosed in the
appellants' specification. Based upon the above
determinations, we conclude that there are substantial
differences between the structure of Holmes and the structure
disclosed by the appellants. Accordingly, under the above-
noted tests for determining equivalence under the sixth
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 we conclude that the structure in Holmes
(e.g., the ridge 40d of trigger 40) is not equivalent to the
structure disclosed by the appellants.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007