Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
equivalents. Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1197, 29 USPQ2d at 1850;
Valmont, 983 F.2d at 1042, 25 USPQ2d at 1454.10
With appellants' claim 33 properly construed, the combined
teachings of the references do not suggest a pivot means which
has the structure or a structure equivalent to that disclosed in
appellants' specification. The only reference relevant to the
pivot means is the Warren patent. The Warren patent teaches a
belt having a purse attached by means of conventional "snap
fasteners" 32 and 33. Figures 3 and 4 and page 1, lines 101 to
108. I agree with Administrative Patent Judge Nase that the snap
fastener disclosed by Warren is properly characterized as a pivot
means. However, a conventional snap fastener is not the same
structure or, in my view, a structure which is insubstantially
different from the rivet-type pivot structure disclosed in
appellants' specification. For example, the structure of
10While not apparent from the court's opinions, the patents
involved in both Donaldson and Valmont included language which
indicated that other unidentified structure could be used.
Thus, the Schuler patent involved in the reexamination before the
court in Donaldson indicated that the disclosure was "but
illustrative" of the invention. U.S. Patent No. 4,395,269, col.
8, lines 29 to 33. The Seckler et al. patent involved in Valmont
indicated that the specific control means described in the
specification was merely a "preferred embodiment." U.S. Patent
No. 3,802,627, col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 5.
2323
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007