Appeal No. 2001-0734
Application 09/071,264
the horizontal row of discrete attachment points in the upper
horizontal frame member (21) and in the floor channel (20) of the
open-framework partition seen in Figure 9 are not covered with
any form of wall panel, floor panel or fasteners, and thus are
fully capable of supporting a furniture unit, if so desired. The
fact that these rows of attachment points are not shown in
Pollock ‘386 (Fig. 9) as supporting a furniture unit or other
accessory structure does not detract from the fact that they are
fully capable of such a use. In that regard, we note that our
Courts of review have repeatedly indicated that a recitation with
respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus or structure
is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed
apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural
limitations of that claimed. See, for example, In re Yanush, 474
F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re
Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 1032, 168 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA
1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA
1967); and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459(CCPA
1963). Accord for this proposition is found in In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
wherein the Court noted that "it is well settled that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007