Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 11
Application No. 09/348,400
Independent claim 81 does not recite the movable truck, but sets forth “a nip
roller mounted adjacent the conveyor to define therebetween a nip,” and “transfer
means for transferring a portion of said article of laundry into said nip.” The transfer
means is disclosed by the appellant as being an air jet (14) that blows the suspended
laundry article into the nip (Figures 1 and 8-10). In response to the appellant’s
argument regarding the absence of this structure in the references, the examiner has
merely pointed out that Robin “discloses transfer means #10 and #11 for feeding the
laundry” (Answer, page 7), and we note that these items comprise, respectively, a
suction pipe and a blower nozzle. The examiner has not explained how the blower
nozzle and the suction pipe “transfer” the laundry item “into” a nip, as is required by this
claim, and it appears to us that they merely function to hold, rather than transfer, the
laundry item beneath suction device 4 until gripper 5 comes along the track to grip it,
whereupon the suction and blower are inactivated to allow the laundry item to be taken
from their grasp (column 5, line 19 et seq.). Moreover, the appellant has asserted that
this limitation is a “means-plus-function” structure under the sixth paragraph of Section
112 (Brief, page 18, Reply brief, page 7), but the examiner has neither considered it in
this fashion,5 nor replied to the appellant’s argument that it should be so considered.
We therefore are of the view that the evidence adduced by the examiner does not
5In order to meet a means-plus-function limitation, the prior art must perform the identical function
recited in the means limitation, and perform that function using the structure disclosed in the appellant’s
specification or an equivalent structure. See Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039,
1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir 1993).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007