Appeal No. 95-1860
Application 07/988,074
Our reviewing court has stated in In re Donaldson Co. Inc.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) that
the "plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six is that one
construing means-plus-function language in a claim must look to
the specification and interpret that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and
equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification
provides such disclosure." We find that the claimed sample
liquid container mounting means, corresponds to the mounting
structure shown in figure 1 that is capable of mounting both
containers. Hence, we find that the Examiner has failed to show
that neither Jones nor Bradley teaches this feature as "a plural-
ity of sample liquid container mounting means each of which is
operable to mount either a closed sample liquid container or an
open sample liquid container" as recited in Appellant's claims.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the Examiner
has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of
the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007