Appeal No. 97-3107
Application No. 08/520,976
envelope during water travel. The specific language of claim 1,
as written, certainly does not appear to require water travel
other than in a vertical direction.
Without more, we would be inclined to agree with the
examiner’s conclusion of anticipation. However, we view
appellants’ argument, at page 2 of the reply brief, that the
“environmental means” embodied in the system disclosed in the
Reams patent is not equivalent to the “environmental means” of
claim 1 on appeal as disclosed in the present application, to be
an argument under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 as in In
re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, since the claim is in “means plus function”
format, we construe the “environmental means responsive to
detection of a high velocity of the delivery envelope during
water travel for maintenance of a safe condition…” to include
only those means actually disclosed in the instant application
and their equivalents under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, sixth paragraph.
Thus, even though not specifically mentioned in the claim
language, we construe this means, in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
' 112, sixth paragraph, to include the specific water impact
system 40 and hydrodynamic piston 80 described at pages 3 through
9 of the instant specification and equivalents thereof so that
the “generation of hydrodynamic pressure during travel of device
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007