Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
In this case, it appears that the examiner has not
specifically stated on the record that the structure described in
Warren that performs the function of the "pivot means" was the
equivalent of the structure disclosed by the appellants that
corresponds to the "pivot means." However, the examiner did
state that Warren's pouch includes pivot means pivotally
attaching the inner side of the pouch to the strap to enable the
compartment to pivot with respect to the strap about an axis
generally normal to the strap front surface. The examiner then
referred the appellants to Figures 3 and 4 and the single rear
snap of Warren. Thus, in accordance with the above-noted15
guidance in the MPEP, I presume that the examiner inferred that
the structure described in Warren that performs the function of
the "pivot means" was the equivalent to the structure disclosed
in appellants' specification that corresponds to the "pivot
means" since the structure described in Warren that performs the
function of the "pivot means" is not excluded by any explicit
1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc).
This guidance has been incorporated into the MPEP at sections
2181 through 2186.
15See page 4 of the first office action (Paper No. 2,
mailed August 26, 1994) and page 3 of the final rejection (Paper
No. 8, mailed February 21, 1995).
3939
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007