Appeal No. 97-0115
Application 08/220,341
the surgical gown, back panel and back panel overlap
limitations in these claims (see page 7 in the brief). These
limitations have both structural and intended use aspects.
The structural aspects are met by the Artzt garment which has
an identical overlapping panel construction and certainly
qualifies as a “gown” under the ordinary and accustomed
meaning of this word. The intended use aspects of the
limitations set forth the environment and the manner in which
the claimed gown is intended to be used. Although the Artzt
garment is not disclosed as being used as a surgical gown or
with its overlapping panels at the wearer’s back, it is not
apparent why this garment is not inherently capable, without
change, of such use. In this regard, the use for which a
prior art device is intended is irrelevant if it could be
employed, without change, for the purpose claimed. See
LaBounty Manufacturing Inc. v. U.S. International Trade
Commission, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1032 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
In a related vein, the appellants argue (see pages 7, 10
and 11 in the brief) that the teachings of Artzt, Coven and
Zimmon do not support the examiner’s conclusion that “[i]t
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007