Appeal No. 97-0040
Application 08/303,065
(a) pushing a cutting means against the workpiece, thereby
cutting the workpiece;
(b) disposing a rubbing pad proximately to the cutting
means;
(c) permitting the rubbing pad to rub against the
workpiece; and
(d) substantially neutralizing in the immediate vicinity of
the cutting means and the rubbing pad the reaction forces upon
the cutting means and the rubbing pad.
It is evident that Balmforth discloses steps (a), (b) and
(c) of claim 10. As for step (d), it appears to be of the type
governed by the sixth paragraph of § 112, i.e., a “step for
performing a specified function without the recital of ... acts
in support thereof,” and therefore “shall be construed to cover
the corresponding ... acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” See O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d
1576, 1582-83, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1781-82 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such
“acts” in the instant case would correspond to providing the
structure which, as discussed above, we construed as being
covered by the “means for substantially neutralizing” recited in
claim 1. Since Balmforth does not provide such structure, it
consequently does not disclose any such acts, or any equivalents
thereof, and thus does not constitute an anticipation of claim
10.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007