Appeal No. 95-4336
Application 08/057,898
magnet means" as defining the same structure as "a magnet".
Given our construction of the claim language, it is
evident that claim 16 is not anticipated by Montelius, because
Montelius does not disclose structure meeting the claim
limitations of a magnet "spaced from said circumscribing end
wall of said coil housing" and a movable header cylinder core
(42 of Montelius) "disposed about said magnet means [magnet]
within the space defined between said circumscribing end wall
of said coil housing and said magnet means [magnet]."
Contrary to these limitations,
Montelius' magnet 35 is located outside the core 42, at the
circumscribing end wall of housing 33, and a core 40 is
located within core 42. While the recited magnet structure
and Montelius' magnet structure may be functionally
equivalent, as the examiner asserts on page 6 of the second
supplemental answer (Paper No. 22), that is not sufficient,
since to anticipate a claim, a reference must disclose
expressly or inherently all of the limitations recited in the
claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As noted above, Montelius does not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007