Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
With regard to the recitation that the supporting unit is
an ?underwater unit,? Barkley’s pontoon hulls 16 admittedly are
not expressly disclosed as being fully submerged in the water.
However, claim 1 is not directed to the combination of the
watercraft and a body of water to support a recitation that
the supporting unit is actually underwater in that body of
water. Instead, claim 1 is directed to the watercraft per se.
Thus, the recitation that the supporting unit is an
?underwater unit? is merely a statement of the manner in which
the supporting unit is intended to be used when placed in a
body of water.
Such a statement of intended use is not germane to the
patentability of claim 1. See Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd.,
781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re
Casey,
370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967) and In re
Lemin, 326 F.2d 437, 440, 140 USPQ 273, 276 (CCPA 1964). In
structure is not the equivalent of the structure disclosed in appellant’s specification
for accomplishing the claimed function. A corresponding observation was made by our
reviewing court in In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542, 1549, 219 USPQ 189, 196 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007