Appeal No. 97-4056 Page 11
Application No. 08/238,926
producing mechanism 8) are not structurally equivalent under
section 112. We reach this conclusion based upon the fact that
they operate in strickenly different manners. Each of the five
embodiments of the appellant's "flow control means" regulates the
flow of water dependent on the direction of the tide so that in
one direction of the tide the flow control means permits flow
through the flow communications means (i.e., the conduit 32,
conduit 132, or channel 232) and in the other direction of the
tide the flow control means restricts/regulates flow through the
flow communications means. Parker's flow control means (i.e.,
head-producing mechanism 8) does not regulate the flow of water
dependent on the direction of the tide, in fact, Parker's flow
control means permits flow through his flow communications means
(i.e., canal or waterway 7) in both directions of the tide.
Thus, we agree with the examiner that Parker's head-producing
mechanism 8 does not operate on the same principle as the
appellant's flow control means. However, for that reason, we
find that Parker's head-producing mechanism 8 is not an
equivalent structure to the structure described in the
appellant's specification expressed in claim 13 as "flow control
means."
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007