Appeal No. 97-4214
Application 08/603,348
scaffold-steadying bracket, scaffold-engaging bolster and
platform described therein perform the function of removably
and entirely supporting conventionally available scaffold
means thereon as recited in claim 11. This, however, is not
dispositive of the issue before us. It is not necessary that
an anticipatory reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed
in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984). In the present case, it is not
apparent, nor has the appellant cogently explained, why
Rosander’s scaffold-steadying bracket, scaffold-engaging
bolster and platform are not inherently capable of removably
and entirely supporting conventionally available scaffold
means thereon as recited in claim 11. Thus on the face of it,
the Rosander structure meets the claimed function under
principles of inherency. Moreover, the appellant has neither
asserted nor shown that this prior art structure is not the
equivalent of the corresponding structure described in the
appellant’s specification for accomplishing the claimed
function. In this light, the appellant’s position on appeal
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007