Appeal No. 97-0986
Application 08/430,580
Consistent with the Donaldson case, it is appropriate, in the first instance, for the
examiner to make findings as to whether or not the aforementioned structure of Eckart is
an equivalent of the claimed “means for maintaining.” We therefore remand this
application to the examiner to determine, on the record, if the aforementioned arcuate
shaped surfaces of elements 56 and/or 58 of Eckart are an equivalent of the smaller and
larger radius support surfaces described in appellants’ specification, and to take any
suitable action thereafter.
Summary
The standing § 103 rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable over Eckart in view
of Smolen is reversed.
The standing § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 12 as being unpatentable over Eckart
in view of Smolen and further in view of Saunders is also reversed.
Additionally, we have remanded the application to the examiner to consider the
matter of equivalency (sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112) of the arcuate shaped surfaces
of Eckart’s elements 56 and/or 58 vis-à-vis the claimed “means for maintaining.”
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
This application, by virtue of its “special” status, requires an immediate action. See
Section 708.01(d) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 6th Edition, Rev. 3, July
1997.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007