Appeal No. 94-3000
Application 07/914,654
examiner's rejection of process claims 17 through 20, 25 and
26.
The rejection of apparatus claims 21 through 23 as being
unpatentable over the disclosures of the Steck, Kremer and
Kurokawa references, however, is on a different footing.
Appellants state that none of the references relied upon by
the examiner renders the claimed lifting means obvious or
anticipated. The lifting means recited in claim 21 read as
follows:
(c) lifting means for lifting said at least one
substrate from said bath at a speed such that
substantially all of said liquid remains in said
bath, said lifting means including knife-shaped
means for pushing said at least one substrate
upwardly at a lowest portion of said at least one
substrate,
We interpret this means-plus-function limitations as the
corresponding structure in the specification or equivalents
thereof. See, e.g., In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in banc); Laitram Corp v.
Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1536, 19 USPQ2d 1367, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) ("[t]he recitation of some structure in a means
plus function element does not preclude the applicability of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007